The only problem with not deleting all cookies with some automatic tool is it will make it easier to fingerprint you. Anything difference with your browser’s behaviour is fingerprintable.

Also, check your this section from the Arkenfox wiki (made by experts on browser fingerprinting):

🟪 DON’T BOTHER: Cookie extensions

- ❗️Sanitizing in-session is a false sense of privacy. They do nothing for IP tracking. Even Tor Browser does not sanitize in-session e.g. when you request a new circuit. A new ID requires both full sanitizing and a new IP. The same applies to Firefox
- ❗️Cookie extensions can lack APIs or implementation of them to properly sanitize: e.g.
    - ⚠️ [last checked Nov 2024], Cookie Auto Delete even instructs it's users to disable Total Cookie Protection - ⚠️ DO NOT DO THIS ⚠️

        "As of Firefox 86, strict mode is not supported at this time due to missing APIs to handle the Total Cookie Protection [... followed by instructions]"

As I said, DivestOS supports microg. It signature spoofs the latest microg release, enabled with a toggle in the settings.

MicroG actually works on DivestOS. It is “unsupported”, as-in the Dev doesnt want to put any significant time into development for Gapps support.

I would avoid /e/os (and iode) because they are frequently behind on Android security patches. More information here: https://divestos.org/pages/patch_history

Stop paying the CEO so much!

Firefox could by now have:

• Much better anti-fingerprinting for a generalized threat model (RFP is too specialized for anonymity)
• Fission (per-site process isolation) for Android, among other things.
• Integrated content blocking (based on uBlock but with the development power of Mozilla)
• Tab groups ffs
• Native force dark mode for web pages
• Sandboxing support using zypak fork server for Flatpak (currently Flatpak weakens Firefox isolation substantially)
• UI/UX update (hire the talent at Zen browser)

deleted by creator

If you liked LineageOS without gapps, than I highly recommend DivestOS. It is a soft-fork of LineageOS with significant security hardening and removal of proprietary binary blobs.

Avoid installing extensions as they break browser site isolation (bad for security). Extensions have a lot more access than a website does in the browser.

Massgrave (known widely for their Windows and Office activation scripts) provides download links as well, useful if you use a VPN since Microsoft blocks you from downloading.

Directory link: https://massgrave.dev/genuine-installation-media

Since it is source available, it isnt open source and therefore closed source.

Edit: we obviously have different definitions. I did not mean to argue over semantics. I would personally never trust a browser with proprietary code, even it is source available.

You can disable that. Here are two links that disable that. Add it to Firefox or Chromium through the settings.

Simple, only disables AI answers: https://duckduckgo.com/?kbe=0&q=%25s

Long, disables AI answers and ads: https://duckduckgo.com/?kak=-1&kax=-1&kbe=0&k1=-1&q=%25s

Steps to create a custom DDG search config:

• Visit: https://duckduckgo.com/settings
• Select the settings you want, for example dark mode.
• Click the “Show Bookmarklet and Settings Data” button.
• Copy the link, using my dark mode scenario would yield the URL https://duckduckgo.com/?kae=d
• Edit the URL by adding &q=%s to the end, which acts as a placeholder for the browser to replace with your actual search query. Using my example https://duckduckgo.com/?kae=d&q=%25s
• Last step is add it to your browser. May differ between browsers, but generally look in the search engines tab of the settings.

Source available is closed source by the OSI definition, which is what is widely used and understood. The “closed” in closed source doesnt only refer to source visibility but also the freedoms upheld by open source.

Your comment I was replying to said “I don’t know where you are reading that Vivaldi is closed source. The source code is right here: https://vivaldi.com/source/”. I was responding to that with Vivaldi’s statement about how the browser is closed source.

In your original comment you illude to it being neither open or closed source, which is not true either since it is closed source. Maybe you meant source available? I didnt read anywhere saying that.

Brave added affiliate links to URLs. While I agree this is quite shady, it is not much different from how Vivaldi makes money. Also Vivaldi is not open source and doesnt come close to Brave or Librewolf in privacy tests. Vivaldi’s fingerprinting protections are incomplete (it seems they stopped at canvas randomization?), it features a weak built-in content blocker, and has an insecure default config (JS JIT and WASM are enabled). I would compare it to default ungoogled chromium + basic adblocker. Vivaldi is no where close to Librewolf or Brave in terms of adblocking, anti-fingerprinting, and browser security hardening. Vivaldi is a neat browser, but a privacy one? I don’t think so.

EDIT: Here are some links. Privacytests.org is a precomputed comparison table, the other two sites are fingerprinting sites which give a better idea of how much must be protected for adequate anti-fingerprinting.

Independent browser Privacy tests: https://privacytests.org/
CreepJS fingerprinting site: https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/
Firefox Arkenfox fingerprinting test site: https://arkenfox.github.io/TZP/tzp.html

Ente Auth

Vivaldi is closed source, they say so on their website. I don’t like the CEO of Brave, neither do I like the crypto nonesense, but arguing that Vivaldi is better for privacy (let alone vanilla chrome) is incredibly incorrect. Brave actually does a decent job of anti-fingerprinting and has strong site isolation. I prefer Cromite because it isnt associated with Brave or any crypto.

Browser comparison table by the developer of DivestOS: https://divestos.org/pages/browsers

I would never use Vivaldi just because it is closed source, doesnt add proper fingerprinting protections, and does not provide a secure default config. Cromite and Brave are better options (for me).

I like to judge software based on its actually merit and not on the theoretical possibility it is vulnerable. It very well could be vulnerable, but without auditing it we are just speculating, which in the real world means nothing. Every project starts somewhere, without community, followers, and “5 years of support”. I am not saying I would trust this software in a security critical situation, just that your speculation means nothing.

And? It lowers the attack surface of Immich. Attack surface is about the surface, whatever an attacker can use to get leverage. This acts as an intermediate between Immich and a public viewer, controlling how a threat actor can access a private Immich server. It helps reduce external attack surface while increasing overall system complexity. Since the project is small, it is easy to audit the code.

Is there any good reason to use Vivaldi? Nice to see more scripts from you. I have been thinking about making some scripts to automate the deployment of Bubblejail profiles for different apps. I don’t run nearly anything without sandboxing, and Bubblejail does not interfer with the Chromium sandbox.