Web browser privacy tests

Not sure if these charts have been posted before.
Covers desktop, mobile, nightlies, etc. Tap on anything to get additional information.

PrivacyTests.org: open-source tests of web browser privacy - https://privacytests.org/


Thank you for that really interesting test.
Librewolf seems very good against fingerprinting while Brave failed (in the desktop browser category).
However, using the “Cover your tracks” tool of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brave si still excellent against fingerprinting while Librewolf gives a partial protection (which is very good because almost every browser fail completely at this test).

Those fingerprinting test sites are not useful to actually evaluate a browsers fingerprinting resistance.
Hence why a site like this is actually useful.

Why are they not useful ?

You can either choose to randomize many values for each site, or you can choose the same values.
But you can’t really have the same values across many types of hardware, so instead you try to create buckets, where each bucket has all devices look the same.
These test websites just give you a result, but they don’t give you a wider/birds eye view of the situation.

Tor Browser, Firefox + arkenfox, Librewolf, and Mull all combined with uBlock Origin provide a very powerful form of anti-fingerprinting. This provides the strong measures that Firefox offers via resistFingerprinting plus the effective straight up known bad script blocking that uBlock Origin offers.

Right now I can open CreepJS on 5 computers with my Brace and have an identical fingerprint.
If you tested that site yourself with a configuration like above you’d think you have a trackable fingerprint, but only when you test on more devices do you realize they all have the same!

You can see the same with Mull here.


As far as i understand, Brave (for exemple) send different values each times it connects. In order to lure, or something like that. The EFF tool tries to connect Brave several times, read these different values and say “fingerprinting is randomized”. Am I correct ? So what’s wrong with this process ?

I tried Brave twice in CreepJS and got 2 different trust results. Isn’t that the proof it works ? (Edit : well… not that different. First time 11% then 0% every time).

(Sorry, english is not my native tongue and I really want to understand how you manage fingerprinting).

I’ve just installed Mull, add Ublock Origin and made the CreepJS test twice and twice got 0%… What should I conclude ?

Edit : Fennec with Ublock Origin gives a result of 84% each time I try it in CreepJS.

I should clarify, I never said Brave’s method didn’t work, just that it is a different approach.
For comparing results, ignore the trust %, but instead compare the “FP ID” line at the very top

1 Like

Tried with Mull + Ublock Origin, Fennec + Ublock Origin, Brave. 9 times each from the same device.
First try always give a different FP ID than the 8 next for the 3 browsers (all 8 next are the same for each browsers).

I think I don’t completely understand how to figure out creepJS results.

It’s like CreepJS learnt who I am as soon as the second try. (?)

FP ID is different for the 3 browsers. Maybe it should not, in order to not be unique ?

Last question : what are “lies” in CreepJS results ?

Hi! When I turn off monitoring of Mull app in Tracker Control I get no access to internet.

I’ve another question. How can I install xBrowserSync and KeePassXC-Browser in Mull?
In “Extras” i can see some recommendations but I can’t see how to search for this extras I want.

I doubt either of those is doable.
I tried xBrowserSync on Iceraven and Smart Cookie Web-Preview. The result was as in this issue post…

Report Broken Add-Ons Here: Sensible default addons list · Issue #63 · fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser

No need for a KeePass addon in Android. Just install any KeePass app that can register itself as an AutoFill service (KeePassDX, KeePass2Android, etc.) and use that.

1 Like

Do you use Tracker Control with your browser?

Mull enforces strict OCSP checks.
Tracker Control is very likely blocking those requests.

Mull is configured to use CRLite for primary lookup which downloads an offline database peridocally.
If that database is not available or the site’s CA isn’t contained in it, it will directly contact the CA’s OCSP server.

I’d recommend instead you use DNS66 combined with my blocklist, which is both more powerful and doesn’t block necessary connections.


One should not use browsers through TrackerControl. Latest version of TC finally added that bit of info in the app for most browser entries.
A lot of browsers have their own means of dealing with ads and trackers.
Oh, and no, I haven’t used TC in awhile.

1 Like

Should I add manually all the lists to DNS66?

No, just this one: https://divested.dev/hosts

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.