Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kirk's avatar

Mullvad adopts the TOR browser's strategy of trying to get everyone who uses it to leave the same browser fingerprint. The philosophy behind this could be labelled "Hiding in the Herd" to avoid standing out from the crowd. If TOR or Mullvad were as widely adopted as the Big 3 (Chrome, Edge, Safari) this might just work as intended. However, results from the Electronic Freedom Foundation's browser fingerprint test site "Cover Your Tracks" suggests that current tracking technology s up to the task of tagging a particular Mullvad/TOR browser on a specific device as unique and therefore trackable across the Internet. The results are superior to Firefox running the Chameleon extension (described in an earlier Apple Dispatch), but still inadequate to the task.

The only browser that evaded being tagged as unique, effectively making it untraceable, was the Brave browser. The Cover Your Tracks testing site consistently ranks Brave as "randomised". By making small changes to what it reports to websites, Brave renders it very difficult or perhaps impossible to track the browser between websites. Even returning to a previously visited website after only a brief interval does not offer enough consistent data to construct a locally persistent fingerprint.

Based on these results, I've opted to use Brave with a reliable paid non-USA based VPN service as my primary Internet interface. When a website fails to function properly or at all using Brave, and I decide the website does not present a serious risk to my device's functioning, I fall back to Mullvad using the same paid VPN service. Given Mullvad VPN's long-standing no-contract price of USD $5/mo, I leave myself the option to use it if any concerns arise about my main VPN service.

What do you think about all this, Apple Dispatch?

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts