Google Chrome 90 has been released

Google released Chrome 90 Stable to the public on April 14, 2021. The new version of Chrome is available for all supported operating systems. It includes new features, improvements, bug and security fixes.

Google's Chrome Platform Status site lists April 13, 2021 as the release date, but Google pushed out a security update for Chrome 89 on that day and not Chrome 90.

Google rolls out updates over time to all devices running the browser. Users may select Menu > Help > About Google Chrome to check the installed version. Chrome will run a check for updates, and will install the update on the device.

chrome 90

The official blog post reveals that 37 different security issues have been fixed in Chrome 90 Stable. The highest severity rating is high, the second-highest after critical. Some of the vulnerabilities were used in the Pwn2Own 2021 hacking competition.

Chrome 90: major changes

Chrome 90 is a security and feature update. Here is a short overview of major changes in the browser version:

  • Port 554 is blocked -- Chrome won't connect to HTTP, HTTPs or FTP servers on port 554 anymore. These connections will fail. Google explains that the blocking of the port is designed to mitigate NAT Slipstream 2.0 attacks.
  • AV1 Encoder -- Chrome 90 on the desktop ships with an AV1 decoder that is optimized for video conferencing with WebRTC. The use of AV1 promises better bandwidth utilization and improved visual quality.
  • HTTPS is the default protocol when users enter domain names without protocol in the Chrome address bar. If you type ghacks.net, Chrome will try https://ghacks.net/ immediately. Previously, Chrome tried HTTP first. The new approach makes connections more secure and should improve the connection speed as well according to Google. Some forms of connections won't go HTTPS first according to Google. These are: IP addresses, single label domains, and reserved hostnames such as localhost or test.
  • Tab Search is being rolled out to all users. Tab Search is one of Google's attempts to improve tab management in the browser. Select the new arrow icon in the Chrome tab bar (on the right of it) to use the new search feature. If it is not enabled yet on your device, set chrome://flags/#enable-tab-search to Enabled to get access to it right away.

Tab Search in Chrome:

tab search chrome

 

Developers may point their browser to the Chrome Developers blog for an overview of developer-related changes.

Here is a short list of important changes:

  • The Feature Policy API has been renamed to Permissions Policy.
  • Remove Content Security Policy directive 'plugin-types'
  • New CSS flexbox debugging tools
  • Moved issue count to the Console status bar

Now You: do you use Google Chrome or another browser?

Summary
Google Chrome 90 has been released
Article Name
Google Chrome 90 has been released
Description
Google released Chrome 90 Stable to the public on April 14, 2021. The new version of Chrome is available for all supported operating systems.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «

Comments

  1. Leopeva64 said on April 15, 2021 at 12:23 pm
    Reply

    Chrome 90 also brings the option to hide the “Reading List” button from the bookmarks bar:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/mqpuns/chrome_90_will_bring_the_option_to_hide_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

    1. Klaas Vaak said on April 16, 2021 at 7:35 am
      Reply

      @Leopeva64: do you realise that the link you have provided contains Google tracking info?
      Use extension ClearURL or Neat URL to prevent that.

  2. Anonymojus said on April 15, 2021 at 1:29 pm
    Reply

    Great release from Google, exclude privacy as usual, but overall, respect.

    1. Iron Heart said on April 15, 2021 at 2:04 pm
      Reply

      There are other Chromium variants than Google Chrome, you know.

  3. Tony said on April 15, 2021 at 2:38 pm
    Reply

    Anyone who uses Chrome should be banned from browsing online ever again.

    1. Jordan Hollis said on April 15, 2021 at 4:06 pm
      Reply

      Well that is rude. that is like being judged for me liking Samsung.

    2. Iron Heart said on April 15, 2021 at 4:28 pm
      Reply

      @Tony

      What about Google-sponsored dependencies?

    3. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 5:56 pm
      Reply

      Most of them are innocent victims who do not understand the damage Google is doing to humanity.

    4. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 11:10 pm
      Reply

      It takes all types to make up humanity, not just your type!

  4. Jordan Hollis said on April 15, 2021 at 4:05 pm
    Reply

    When is the update out?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on April 15, 2021 at 5:57 pm
      Reply

      It is out now.

  5. Corky said on April 15, 2021 at 4:10 pm
    Reply

    It still baffles me why people would choose to use a web browser made by an advertising company.

    1. Bobby Phoenix said on April 15, 2021 at 6:19 pm
      Reply

      Because it’s one of the, if not the, best browser for security. Sure you give up some privacy, but it’s a trade off. I don’t mind some targeted ads to get superior security.

      1. Iron Heart said on April 15, 2021 at 6:42 pm
        Reply

        @Bobby Phoenix

        While it is more secure than Firefox in terms of exploit mitigations, Google Chrome is not any more or less secure than other Chromium-based browsers. Since there are more privacy-conscious variants of Chromium, I still wouldn’t recommend it.

      2. Corky said on April 15, 2021 at 7:53 pm
        Reply
      3. Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 8:23 am
        Reply

        @Corky

        You can build private products with strong exploit mitigations – that’s not a contradiction. One would think both are equally important.

      4. Corky said on April 16, 2021 at 4:51 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: You certainly can but what’s more secure is not collecting the data in the first place then there’s no data to exploit.

        The simple fact of the matter is that if private data has to be provided it should be limited to what’s strictly necessary, collecting private data so you can better target advertisements at them is not necessary, let alone strictly necessary.

        That is unless you’re in the business of selling advertisements like Google is.

      5. Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 5:34 pm
        Reply

        @Corky

        I think we need to clear up the terms used here:

        Security = How good an application is at fending off malware like viruses, trojans etc. How good the exploit mitigations of applications are, how quickly the developer reacts to security issues.

        Privacy = What kind of personal info an application collects (if any), how this info is being processed and used by the developer.

        The two are unrelated but equally important. You can create applications with e.g. strong sandboxing and not have them collect personal info of users. One has nothing to do with the other. The cartoon you’ve posted makes no sense from my perspective.

        There are areas where the two touch e.g. whether the info collected is stored in an encrypted state to prevent data theft in case of a server security breach, but generally they can be told apart quite easily. Google Chrome is an example of an application that is relatively secure but not private.

      6. Corky said on April 17, 2021 at 9:11 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: Erm, no.

        Security refers to preventing the unauthorised access to data, if you don’t collect the data in the first place there’s no need to prevent someone from accessing it, it’s as simple as that.

        By not collecting the data you’re reducing your attack surface, it’s one of the most basic of security measures, it’s security 101.

      7. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 1:18 pm
        Reply

        @Corky

        Security is much broader than the protection of collected user data! I am talking about sandboxing, process isolation, memory allocation etc. here. Those are all parts of application security and are 100% independent of data collection, my main man.

        I agree that software shouldn’t collect user data, but this is more or less a separate topic, although the protection of collected user data is also part of the broader security debate (which, as said, is much greater than this).

        Your cartoon doesn’t make sense. Privacy and security are not contradictory goals.

      8. Corky said on April 17, 2021 at 3:27 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart : I didn’t say security was the protection of collected user data, i said security refers to preventing the unauthorised access to data.

        If you can’t make sense of that cartoon then i suggest educating yourself, no one said privacy and security are contradictory, just like no one said security was the protection of collected user data, try reading things properly instead of making up your own meanings.

      9. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 5:32 pm
        Reply

        @Corky

        You don’t have to make sense out of every cartoon. Privacy has nothing to do with security. You can secure your application without collecting user data, friend. IF you collect user data, it is your duty to protect it, but as I said, you don’t have to do that.

        Security and privacy are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably on gHacks despite it not being the same thing at all. They are also NOT contradictory goals.

        > I didn’t say security was the protection of collected user data, i said security refers to preventing the unauthorised access to data.

        This is the same thing as far as the local application is concerned. Needless to say, you also have to secure user data (in case you collect it) on your server.

      10. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 1:30 am
        Reply

        @Bobby Phoenix

        > Because it’s one of the, if not the, best browser for security.

        Really?

        Proprietrary browsers are not security orientated. Neither are proprietrary OS’s.

        Chrome is leaking data all over the place to google, so hardly secure now is it?

        The worlds most powerful supercomputers are all run on open source software.

        Security = Freedom

        Chrome is not freedom.

        Chromium is not freedom either, since Googleville wants everyone using chromium to be in their FLoCK.

        If they did not, then they would not be putting the FLoCK into their product chromium.

        Chromium is so bad that it has to be constantly supervised to see next what google has in store for it.

        Google being in the FOSS world is like a fox that goes into the chicken pen and telling the chickens that he is a chicken. The chickens don’t realise that they are on the menu until its too late.

        But ah, ignorance is bliss!

        Lets all hop onboard chromium and see where google is taking us, Chromium fork logic. They have no clue. They just don’t get it.

      11. Klaas Vaak said on April 16, 2021 at 7:37 am
        Reply

        @Anon7: you are conflating security and privacy. Ignorance is bliss indeed.

      12. Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 8:31 am
        Reply

        @Anon7

        Nonsense fake news round no. 9120293

        > Proprietrary browsers are not security orientated. Neither are proprietrary OS’s.

        Open source vs. closed source has nothing to do with exploit mitigations. Chrome has stronger exploit mitigations than Firefox, Windows has stronger exploit mitigations than Linux (which usually only wins out via obscurity). Those are two unrelated discussions, try not to intermingle topics.

        > The worlds most powerful supercomputers are all run on open source software.

        Yeah, because Linux was always meant to be server-friendly.

        > Chromium is not freedom either, since Googleville wants everyone using chromium to be in their FLoCK.

        You make it seem like other Chromium-based browsers aside from Chrome can’t disable FLoC, but this is clearly and demonstrably false:

        https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/14/vivaldi-says-no-to-googles-floc-as-well/

        https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/13/brave-reveals-why-it-is-disabling-googles-floc-in-the-browser/

        > Chromium is so bad that it has to be constantly supervised to see next what google has in store for it.

        The problem wouldn’t just disappear with Firefox as a base. It has its own privacy issues including backdoors.

        > Lets all hop onboard chromium and see where google is taking us

        Mozilla, the Google proxy, take you to the very same place without you realizing it, lol. They are already shitting their pants in excitement at the thought of Web Bundles. Says it all.

      13. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 5:10 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        > you are conflating security and privacy.

        Security and Privacy go hand in hand.

        Google gathering peoples DATA who are using Chrome is not exactly what i would call security or privacy.

        Its like giving a stalker a front room view into your life when you use Chrome. So again hardly secure when data gets leaked back to googleville.

        @ IH

        > Windows has stronger exploit mitigations than Linux

        FUD. LIkely you got that BS From whonix clowns who have no idea what they are on about.

        The worlds most POWERFUL supercomputers are all running GNU-LINUX OS, it has literally drowned out all competition due to its superiority.

        Proprietrary OS Are not secure. Not trutworthy.

        But these facts are all lost on someone as ignorant and credulous as you are.

        Shouldn’t you have Brave ads to be looking at anyway besises miserably trying to troll my comments?

        Anyway enjoy all those Brave ads.

        I can’t wait until Brave opts out of Chromium, because its looking more and more likely. Now that google want their FLoCK embedded into chromium in future releases.

      14. Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 5:49 pm
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > FUD. LIkely you got that BS From whonix clowns who have no idea what they are on about.

        Not at all, lol:

        https://www.digivie.com/way-more-vulnerabilities-in-apple-and-linux-operating-systems-than-windows/

        Because of its market share, Windows is under much greater scrutiny than both macOS and Linux. It makes sense that many of its comparable components are better guarded against exploits by now, it also makes sense that Microsoft would invest more R&D into Windows security because it is such a major target. Windows’ exploit mitigations are much stronger than those of either Linux or macOS, you won’t find security experts claiming otherwise.

        > The worlds most POWERFUL supercomputers are all running GNU-LINUX OS, it has literally drowned out all competition due to its superiority.

        Linux has a strong server focus and a weak focus on the desktop, what you say is unsurprising.

        > Proprietrary OS Are not secure. Not trutworthy.

        You seem to conflate security with the open source vs. closed source debate. This is erroneous. Whether an application is open source or not says nothing about the exploit mitigations that are in place. That’s a totally unrelated discussion. Open source does nothing to enhance “security” (security = proven resistance against exploits).

        > Shouldn’t you have Brave ads to be looking at anyway besises miserably trying to troll my comments? Anyway enjoy all those Brave ads.

        Still not done being a hypocrite? Firefox does the same for its Pocket Stories yet I never see you talking about it, why is that? The hypocrisy is strong with this one for sure.

        Brave politely asks whether or not I want to opt into Brave Rewards and readily accepts “No.” for an answer. Mozilla just enables the very same tech you are complaining about without even asking you. My young padawan, you never learn.

        > I can’t wait until Brave opts out of Chromium

        Brave will continue to use Chromium and it will easily outlast Firefox going by current market trends.

        > Now that google want their FLoCK embedded into chromium in future releases.

        https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/8468

        When you come up with fake news, try to make them sound halfway credible at least.

      15. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 7:35 am
        Reply

        @IH

        > Because of its market share, Windows is under much greater scrutiny

        Hilarious, windows is under no scrutiny because it is a closed source OS. Those links you keep spamming are simply opinions and opinions vary widely.

        I don’t click your links, they are not worth it. All full of shit for the most part.

        > Windows’ exploit mitigations are much stronger than those of either Linux or macOS

        BS! peoples lives and business have been ruined from using windows. It is extremely insecure. Apple is a better choice, Linux is the best choice.

        > Linux has a strong server focus and a weak focus on the desktop, what you say is unsurprising.

        They also have a strong focus in being a superior OS thus why the OS of choice on supercomputers is GNU/Linux. Its more than just servers.

        Keep being Mr Ignorant as usual though.

        > Whether an application is open source or not says nothing about the exploit mitigations that are in place.

        Congratulations, that must be about the dumbest thing i have ever heard on here.

        > Open source does nothing to enhance “security”

        No comment. I hope others can point out your stupidity!

        > Firefox does the same for its Pocket Stories yet I never see you talking about it

        Yet pocket stories can be neutralised before ever taking FF online.

        But these facts are all lost on you. *FacePalm* You must be really think FF users are idiots.

        > Brave will continue to use Chromium

        Is that you Brendan?

        > When you come up with fake news

        Fake news was invented for censorship, but since you like google products its not surprising why you would use it as an insult.

        Anyway, enjoy your Brave ads and your binance notifications.

      16. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 1:13 pm
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > Hilarious, windows is under no scrutiny

        LOL, it is. How do you think malware is being developed? How do you think security researchers can detail security issues when they report to Microsoft? Are you stupid?

        > I don’t click your links, they are not worth it. All full of shit for the most part.

        Now I realize why you don’t seem to know what you are even talking about. :D

        > BS! peoples lives and business have been ruined from using windows. It is extremely insecure.

        Possibility of exploits (true for any software) ≠ eXtrEmeLY inSEcuRe

        > superior OS thus why the OS of choice on supercomputers

        LOL, it just depends on what you prioritize when developing software. Linux prioritizes servers, hence its application there.

        > Congratulations, that must be about the dumbest thing i have ever heard on here.

        You are fairly dumb if you don’t understand that open source vs. closed source says literally nothing about the exploit mitigations that are in place. Exploit mitigations (as part of hopefully any software) can be either closed source or open source. Open source vs. closed source is an unrelated debate which you just intermingle with the topic “security” because you don’t know zilch and refuse to learn.

        Some of the most secure software on the planet is closed source, my dude.

        > No comment. I hope others can point out your stupidity!

        How does the “open source” status improve the security of any software? Open source software and closed source software are both getting hacked all the time, in case you haven’t noticed. Windows is a high profile target and their security is naturally more advanced, because they (MS) literally have to deal with malware all the time, whereas Linux is pseudo-secure based on its obscurity (private persons hardly use it and those are the main targets of malware authors).

        > Yet pocket stories can be neutralised before ever taking FF online.

        Why “neutralised”? Why is it not opt-in like Brave Rewards? Care to elaborate, hypocrite?

        > You must be really think FF users are idiots.

        Most of them are. As is the case with any other browser. Noobs are always the majority. This is not what I am criticizing, though.

        It’s the opt-out of the local algorithm in Firefox, whereas in Brave it’s an opt-in, which is a problem. Brave is going the pro-user route here and you are still hypocritical about it, because of personal bias – you are making a laughing stock out of yourself in the process.

        You can’t have the very same thing in Firefox and declare it OK (which it is, in both Brave and Firefox, you are just a drama queen who can’t provide evidence of any privacy issue associated with local ad matching, because there literally isn’t one) yet ride the very same thing to death in case of Brave. This is the very definition of hypocrisy

        > Anyway, enjoy your Brave ads and your binance notifications.

        Again: Enjoy Pocket which does the same thing without sharing the profit with you, hypocrite. And remember: Free money bad! User choice bad!

      17. Emil Brausewetter said on April 16, 2021 at 8:14 pm
        Reply

        Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 8:31 am
        >>>You make it seem like other Chromium-based browsers aside from Chrome can’t disable FLoC, but this is clearly and demonstrably false:
        https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/13/brave-reveals-why-it-is-disabling-googles-floc-in-the-browser/

        Ahem …

        The FLoC origin trial currently affects 0.5% of Chrome users.

        FLoC’s origin trial being run by Google is only live on Chrome versions 89 and above. If you’re not taking part in the origin trial, you will need to set flags and run Chrome from the command line.

        How is it possible to disable the FLoC component, which is not enabled at all in Chromium forks?

        The easiest way to opt-out of FLoC as web user is not to use Chrome at all and use Firefox or Safari instead.

        So why would I use a Chromium fork that disables an unenabled FLoC?

      18. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 9:08 am
        Reply

        @Emil Brausewetter

        It would be better, you know, not to entirely rely on news websites who have no clue and take an actual look at the code:

        https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/8468/files

        The code is present in CHROMIUM, not just CHROME but Google only runs the trials in CHROME so far, before they enable it in CHROMIUM (which means that it automatically will be enabled in Chrome as well, as an offshoot of Chromium). Other Chromium-based browsers, if they don’t want to have it in the future, need to DISABLE THIS IN THEIR OWN FORKS OF CHROMIUM.

        This was the kindergarten version, hope it is understandable.

      19. Emil Brausewetter said on April 17, 2021 at 2:33 pm
        Reply

        Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 9:08 am
        >>> It would be better, you know, not to entirely rely on news websites who have no clue and take an actual look at the code:
        https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/8468/files

        I see! But …

        … it would be better, you know, not to entirely rely on a brave developer in his “Panique au village” modus and look at line 42 at

        https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:chrome/browser/federated_learning/floc_id_provider_impl.h;l=42

        // A computed floc will be valid if:
        // – 3rd party cookies are NOT blocked.
        // […]

        Isn’t block third-party cookies the default cookie setting in Brave? … and why should Google enable an origin-trial¹ running ’till july in such a hostile envirement?
        ¹) https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md

        No reason to disable anything wich isn’t enabled anyway, but a lot of reason to beat the drums that serves only the following purpose:

        – scrounge on Google Chrome’s userbase (Tu felix Firefox bibe 🍻, the others cannibalize each other).

        – bamboozle there own userbase & news websites – who have no clue – by telling them, how bulletproof there “Privacy out of the box” is … untill the future will tell thruth!

        How cute … cheers 🍺

      20. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 5:42 pm
        Reply

        @Emil Brausewetter

        > Isn’t block third-party cookies the default cookie setting in Brave?

        It should be obvious, but: The Brave devs also have to cover the use case of a user allowing third party cookies. If they did nothing, FLoC would get enabled if a user allows third party cookies (at some point, when FLoC becomes the default in Chromium). This is not acceptable. The default of Brave does not alleviate the need for a patch here.

        > and why should Google enable an origin-trial¹ running ’till july in such a hostile envirement?

        Google doesn’t enable it *in Brave*, they introduce the code *in Chromium* and currently enable it *in Chrome* as a trial. Once the trial completes, it will get enabled by default in Chromium. Brave already prevents that from happening by hard-disabling the code in Chromium (even though no trial currently occurs there).

        > No reason to disable anything wich isn’t enabled anyway

        Wrong, because there are valid use cases that are not identical with the defaults (e.g. a user allowing third party cookies because some website wouldn’t work without).

        > the others cannibalize each other

        Chromium as a whole cannibalizes Firefox, and for that it doesn’t matter which Chromium browser is currently on top.

        > bamboozle there own userbase & news websites – who have no clue – by telling them, how bulletproof there “Privacy out of the box” is

        They are doing more for user privacy than any other browser except for Tor:

        https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprivacy

        But hey, whatever.

        > untill the future will tell thruth!

        Can’t do worse than Mozilla, can they? Paying lip service to privacy while actually enabling advertisers i(ncluding their Google benefactors) to spy on users. We’ll talk once they sink to Mozilla’s lows, is that OK?

      21. Emil Brausewetter said on April 18, 2021 at 11:42 am
        Reply

        The Present
        Origin trials are a Chrome-specific experimentation framework.

        Learn what “Origin trials” are and in this particular case “What are third-party origin trials?” and how to activate.

        → https://web.dev/third-party-origin-trials/

        → https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md

        → https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5691464711405568

        Note:

        • The focus of this experiments is “to encourage broad participation and feedback from web developers”.

        • Usage of these experiments is constrained to remain below Chrome’s deprecation threshold (< 0.5% of all Chrome page loads) by a system which automatically disables the experiment on all origins if this threshold is exceeded.

        • The time-limited nature of an origin trial means that these features will self destruct after a few months whatever happens.

        The Future

        WHO runs the back-end service that creates the FLoC model?

        Every browser vendor¹ will need to make their own choice of how to group browsers² into cohorts. Chrome³ is running its own FLoC service; other browsers¹ might choose to implement FLoC with a different clustering approach, and would run their own service to do so.

        — https://web.dev/floc/#who-runs-the-back-end-service-that-creates-the-floc-model

        ¹) Every browser vendor eg. Brave, Vivaldi and the usual gang of Chromium forks.

        ²) The browser, on the user's device, works out which cohort it belongs to.

        ³) Google Chrome browser ... not to confuse with other Chromium forks browser.

        No choice – no FLoc! No FLoC – nothing to disable that a browser vendor does not enable! … the future will tell!

        Happy patching …??? Use Firefox or Safari and you are on the bright side of Privacy and Security!

        Yours faithfully

    2. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 8:29 pm
      Reply

      Might be the absence of ads, shady partnerships and clownfoolery that goes on elsewhere that keeps them content.
      Remember what it was like when a bad substitute teacher took the class, everyone going beserk, total chaos. It sort of looks like that, the kids are all those 3rd parties fighting each other for data and the sub teacher hands everything over to google anyway.

    3. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 9:55 pm
      Reply

      Because it was a search engine first. Google was a search engine website first. Advertising came later.

  6. computer said no said on April 15, 2021 at 6:02 pm
    Reply

    @tony.
    That actually would not be such a bad idea.At least it would make the global browser share more equal.

  7. anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 6:16 pm
    Reply

    Chrome users are FLoCed, unfortunately.

    1. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 11:17 pm
      Reply

      Not necessarily.
      Google Chrome is up to date
      Version 90.0.4430.72 (Official Build) (64-bit)

      https://amifloced.org/ says:

      Your browser does not currently have FloC enabled.
      The FLoC origin trial currently affects 0.5% of Chrome users, and it doesn’t look like you are one of them. Google may add to or change the set of users in the trial at any time. You can check back here to see if FLoC is turned on in the future.

      1. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 5:13 pm
        Reply

        > The FLoC origin trial currently affects 0.5% of Chrome users

        Not an insignificant number given chromes grotesque share of the browser market.

    2. Steve said on April 15, 2021 at 11:22 pm
      Reply

      Disable third party cookies, you won’t be FLoCed. In the short term, at least.

      Quote:
      If you have been assigned a FLoC ID, it means that your browser has processed your browsing history and assigned you to a group of “a few thousand” similar users. The FLoC ID is the label for your behavioral group. This numeric label is not meaningful on its own.

      The scary part is Google assigns you to a group of similar users. How do they get the information to categorize users as similar?

      1. Yash said on April 16, 2021 at 7:38 pm
        Reply

        @Steve
        And the more scarier part is Google or Chrome to be specific knows all about cohorts, so say if someone’s browsing pattern differs from the majority of users, no guarantee he/she may even be tracked individually, afterall that’s the main point of sorting users into cohorts if viewed from Privacy point of view.

  8. Anonymous said on April 15, 2021 at 9:52 pm
    Reply

    I am not seeing the update yet. I have a Chromebook that is only 3 years old, so I still get updates for another 3 years.

  9. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 1:06 am
    Reply

    Chrome users and Chromium forks (Cough* Brave, Cough* Vivaldi) are the sheep in Googles FLoCK.

    1. Klaas Vaak said on April 16, 2021 at 7:40 am
      Reply

      @Anon7: and that’s why they are not FLoC’ed. Like you said yourself: ignorance is bliss.

  10. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 4:52 am
    Reply

    The worse data-gathering browsers in the world are all based on chromium and are all proprietrary closed source software.

    (1) Chrome

    (2) Edge

    (3) Opera

    (4) Yandex

    All those are contributing commits to the chromium project too by the way, with google the main player with 90% which is not surprising since it owns chromium.

    Those are the waters that Brave are swimming in, shark infested waters, oh lets not forget that Vivaldi too is proprietrary.

    Now lets look at Gecko browsers.

    ALL OPEN SOURCE FOR THE MOST PART! ALL PRIVACY FOCUSED FOR THE MOST PART!

    The most private one being Tor.

    It certainly paints quite the contrast doesn’t it?

    Anyone that talks crap about Gecko and wanting to see its downfall, do not care for the future of FOSS browsers not under google control.

    Be careful what you wish for, because without an alternative to chromium, the lack of browser engine choice would be catastrophic.

    1. Iron Heart said on April 16, 2021 at 8:53 am
      Reply

      @Anon7

      > The worse data-gathering browsers in the world are all based on chromium and are all proprietrary closed source software.

      Nice list. Firefox has privacy issues as well (see below).

      > since it owns chromium.

      Not according to the open source licenses Chromium has to operate under.

      > ALL OPEN SOURCE FOR THE MOST PART!

      Chromium is open source, that is not exactly a unique quality of Firefox despite you wishing that it were so.

      > ALL PRIVACY FOCUSED FOR THE MOST PART!

      LOL, no. Citing from an earlier reply to your nonsense, regarding Firefox:

      “It shares your location and download hashes with Google. it uses Google Analytics internally. It has a weak tracking blocker (using the shit Disc connect lists). It allows most forms of prefetching. Fingerprinting defenses are inactive by default. It installs system level telemetry that spies on your default browser even if it isn’t Firefox. It has a backdoor that allows for remote code execution (called “Firefox Experiments” / Normandy). Its Sync requires E-Mail addresses. Leaks unique extension IDs via simple fetch requests. Connects speculatively to websites as you type addresses in the address bar. Uses Cloudflare for DoH (I am sure the DNS entries are safe in their hands!) etc.”

      You call that privacy-focused? LOL, ahahahahaha….

      > The most private one being Tor.

      You always seem to forget that the Tor team has to heavily modify Firefox to make it private.

      > It certainly paints quite the contrast doesn’t it?

      Actually, no.

      > Anyone that talks crap about Gecko and wanting to see its downfall, do not care for the future of FOSS browsers not under google control.

      I care about Google control. Why do you think I am using a browser that is supportive of decentralization and adblocking, whereas Mozilla, the Google slave, can’t wait to implement Web Bundles and has this to say about people trying to ween themselves off abusive, centralized corporate surveillance:

      https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/fellow-research-decentralized-web-hate/

      > Be careful what you wish for, because without an alternative to chromium, the lack of browser engine choice would be catastrophic.

      Chromium is not without competition, there is still WebKit which even today is Blink’s main competitor, not Gecko. Plus, within the Chromium space, there is competition as well.

      Not that I would call a Google-funded 4% market share browser “competition”, by the way. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, hardly anyone would notice. Since Mozilla follows Google’s commands like the fake opposition that they are, the influence on the politics of the web would also gravitate towards nil.

      1. Unknown person said on April 16, 2021 at 7:53 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: “I care about Google control” Yet you’re still using a browser that’s deriving its codebase from Google.

        Look yourself in the mirror first.

      2. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 8:37 am
        Reply

        @Unknown person

        Brave does not have the privacy issues of Chrome, because it is a modified build. That’s the only thing that should be relevant to users, that no anti-user behavior is allowed. Same like an ungoogled version of Android (a Custom ROM), once the privacy intrusions are dealt with, I couldn’t care less that Google has written the calculator app!?

        Mozilla are Google cheerleaders (guess who funds whom) and are supportive of Google’s blatant anti-user plans, while Brave happens to oppose them: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/08/30/google-proposed-web-bundles-could-threaten-the-web-as-we-know-it/

        That they have their own engine does not automatically mean that they are not supportive of Google’s anti-user actions. Use your brain for once, I rather use a browser that uses Google code but is unproblematic in terms of privacy and speaks out against Google’s anti-user actions, than a browser that uses its own engine yet is problematic in terms of privacy and is supportive of Google’s every whim.

        The world is only as complicated as we make it out to be, apparently.

      3. Yash said on April 16, 2021 at 7:53 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        I see it doesn’t take long for you to change article and again start bragging about Oh Firefox spy on this and that without providing facts other than those websites which you will mention again. I would suggest you to first verify those imaginary scenario into real world, and then start this again by showing some facts.
        As for its sync require email address, well it would be very hard for you to provide the Gmail(privacy friendly) address by the looks of it. Ever heard of anonymous email addresses?

      4. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 7:42 am
        Reply

        @Yash

        > I see it doesn’t take long for you to change article and again start bragging about Oh Firefox spy on this and that without providing facts other than those websites which you will mention again. I would suggest you to first verify those imaginary scenario into real world,

        Irony Heart does not do real world, he just spams contrived ideas that are easily challenged and debunked.

        For example he says windows is more secure than linux.

        That makes no sense at all because in the REAL WORLD, windows is the most actively targeted OS in the wild. Its so bad that millions are willing to pay a PREMIUM to use apple so they can feel more secure and have less security issues to deal with it. In a way they are right to consider an alternative.

        The irony is though. that they do not have to pay the PREMIUM to escape from windows, they can just use a good linux distro which are even more private and secure than a windows and apple OS’s.

        Sure they will likely run into hardware compatibility issues and might not be tech savvy enough to wipe windows off the hard drive and handle missing drivers, but if they researched such issues they would be saving hundreds on the premium they are paying to apple.

        The effort would be worth it for them.

      5. Iron Heatz said on April 17, 2021 at 1:28 pm
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > easily challenged and debunked.

        Certainly not by you. You can’t substantiate any argument. You fall into fallacies, mix up topics that are 100% unrelated (thinking they are the same thing), and you have never provided any kind of source, despite me repeatedly having asked you for sources. This is fairly pathetic.

        > That makes no sense at all because in the REAL WORLD, windows is the most actively targeted OS in the wild.

        Of course Windows gets targeted more based on its market share. Very intelligent of you to recognize that! What follows from this? It follows that Microsoft has to put great effort into securing Windows, including R&D. Linux is pseudo-secure based on its obscurity. It is not a sound idea to rely on security via obscurity, Linux is way behind in terms of exploit mitigations and you should hope and pray that it stays in its niche and never gets targeted in the way Windows gets targeted based on its market share. Linux is NOT ready for this.

        > For example he says windows is more secure than linux.

        Yes, certainly in terms of the exploit mitigations that are in place by now, and in terms of the effort it takes to hack it, and you yourself have already explained why. Congrats.

      6. Unknown person said on April 17, 2021 at 8:19 am
        Reply

        @Yash: Let’s not forget that he hadn’t posted in here in weeks because there’s no FF or Chrome news. Shows his priority in life, isn’t it?

      7. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 8:41 am
        Reply

        @Yash

        > without providing facts

        ???

        I have literally listed privacy issues of Firefox in a factual manner. And it’s less of a case of Mozilla spying on users but rather a case of them enabling the spying activities of advertisers by default.

        As for E-Mail, we both know that most people will be using their real E-Mail address including their name. Anyhow, it is perfectly possible not to require E-Mail addresses by utilizing blockchain, this is how Brave’s Sync works. That Mozilla does not do that as well is not encouraging to me.

      8. Yash said on April 17, 2021 at 1:00 pm
        Reply

        @Anon 7
        Yep, windows is mess right now, windows 10 is privacy nightmare even if someone had turned off all those settings. Their updates are pathetic and I don’t need to provide fact for this.
        @8:19
        Its harsh to comment on someone’s life, I would despise that even though regular comments from someone you don’t like can be frustrating.
        @Iron Heart
        That’s the one thing I like in Brave – syncing without email. But I prefer account syncing with anonymous email and save those credentials in password manager as it is helpful in certain situations in which your device is broken or lost or sent to Mars lol.

      9. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 1:47 pm
        Reply

        @Yash

        It’s not “harsh”, it’s just someone sticking his giant nose into the affairs of others, where it doesn’t belong and never will belong. @Unknown person has never contributed anything useful here, therefore anything he says is auto-discarded in my book.

      10. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 8:14 pm
        Reply

        > it’s just someone sticking his giant nose into the affairs of others

        Funny how Iron Heart has described his behaviour around FF users.

        > @Unknown person has never contributed anything useful here, therefore anything he says is auto-discarded in my book.

        Thank you Unknown person for your valuable contribution.

        What you say is very insightful indeed.

      11. Anon7 said on April 16, 2021 at 8:16 pm
        Reply

        > I care about Google control. Why do you think I am using a browser that is supportive of decentralization

        Supportive of decentralization by using a product that google owns and does 90% of its commits, and the other commits being done by M$, Opera, Yandex.

        Decentralization? Chuckle.

        What you have completely failed to realise is that just because Google says chromium is open source does not mean that chromium is healthy as an open source project to use.

        Lots more crap going on in chromium to remove than Gecko.

        All those facts are lost on you. Brave will likely move away from chromium soon enough anyway. Even one of the employees said on a recent article on Ghacks that chromium is difficult to keep private. Which makes perfect sense.

        When Brave moves to a more respectable engine, i would only then consider it a worthy option to FF.

      12. Iron Heart said on April 17, 2021 at 9:02 am
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > Supportive of decentralization by using a product that google owns and does 90% of its commits, and the other commits being done by M$, Opera, Yandex.

        Brave supports crypto and IPFS, Mozilla preaches on how decentralized structures outside of GAFAM control are basically a white supremacist hotbed that should be avoided by good citizens (lol). You focus on the engine and don’t look at any other factor.

        And yes, Chromium provides freedom as well because it has to operate under open source licenses, which enables Brave to do whatever they want to the code in their own fork, nothing Google can do about it, legally or otherwise.

        > Lots more crap going on in chromium to remove than Gecko.

        LOL, nope. The privacy issues of Gecko are the same or worse as vanilla Chromium. Mozilla’s commitment to privacy is marketing lip service, why do you think Tor is so heavily modified? Because Firefox is so private to begin with? Chuckle indeed.

        Besides, an “engine” is largely unrelated to privacy. The engine is literally just responsible for rendering websites correctly. What you mean are unsolicited connections to Google, but this is not the “engine” and those connections are dealt with in Brave anyway. The actual engine (term used correctly in my case) might support anti-user web standards like Web Bundles, but this is not an issue of the engine itself, but rather an issue of how the web standard is crafted, and an issue of motivation (“Why does the browser dev choose to enable feature X?”). Anyway, for such web standards, there are internal kill switches in Chromium, and Brave makes use of those as well. I’d be more worried about Firefox both implementing and enabling Google’s proposals as compared to Brave, they have a far worse track record there (that you ignore). But hey, they have their own “engine” which somehow automatically makes it OK, I guess, even if it’s literally saying nothing. Better to have Firefox cheering on and enabling Web Bundles and similar stuff, than Brave which uses Chromium code and has it disabled by default. Are you such a simpleton? Engine differences are not the whole story re. web politics (which is really what you complain about if I understand correctly).

        > Brave will likely move away from chromium soon enough anyway.

        Wow, there are so many reasons why this won’t happen. Suffice to say that their entire Brave Rewards implementation and Brave Shields are designed for Chromium and would have to be implemented all over again, turning years of work to ash. Yeah, I am sure it will happen, lol. I guess switching to a 4% market share browser (and falling) as a base provides a great outlook for the future, too. Clever indeed.

        > When Brave moves to a more respectable engine

        What does that even mean? Chromium with support for various problematic web standards disabled is still Chromium technically, but I fail to see how this is not respectable? Brave would have to disable various stuff in Gecko as well, why are you always missing this? Gecko has extremely serious privacy issues of its own, but ultimately, this is not a question of “engine” because the configuration is whatever the browser dev chooses, and this can be achieved on any(!) engine.

      13. Yash said on April 17, 2021 at 5:39 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart
        I’m not going to clarify everything you said because its the same thing you always says.
        About Firefox not as private as Tor from default, there is a reason for that and its because of the users. Any program’s first priority should be about providing customisation options for users so those who want to, can access those features. Unfortunately that’s not what majority wants, this is why many don’t use password manager, 2FA, and use basic default data collecting settings and simple passwords because for them, privacy doesn’t matter. For them a certain product is good only if they don’t have to tinker much. That’s not a good approach towards things but it is what it is. I know many folks in my personal life who are the same, I installed Firefox in their device but they started complaining because certain website showed an error, although it only took a couple of clicks in privacy respecting add-ons for that website to work but their response was Firefox is not good as Chrome and so I leave them on the default settings in Firefox which is certainly better than Chrome and its many Chromium forks even Brave.
        When you mention Tor, I think you should carefully mention it as streaming a Live match and many more things are not possible in it.
        Its a very good tool but because disabling JS is a necessity, it has its limitation without forgetting high latency, slow speeds and no login service(atleast for those accounts which were created on Clearnet). And that’s why Firefox is good browser as it can be used by someone who wants a change from Chrome to someone who can change it to achieve more privacy.
        And that doesn’t end here as there are many more very good options in the form of FLOSS software which most of the time are privacy respecting and security wise robust, and solid alternatives to giant monopoly tools, atleast for those who understand the dangers of reduced competition in any field.

      14. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 8:22 pm
        Reply

        @yash

        > atleast for those who understand the dangers of reduced competition in any field.

        That is something Irony Heart clearly does not understand.

        If he had his way, he would only like to see only the choice between chromium or webkit, both engineered products from google and apple.

        His comparison of mozilla to big tech companies ilike google or apple is absurd.

        Mozilla is a FOSS foundation.

      15. Iron Heart said on April 18, 2021 at 4:46 am
        Reply

        @Yash

        > About Firefox not as private as Tor from default, there is a reason for that and its because of the users.

        I understand that Tor’s configuration is not workable for most users (Did you hear that, @Anon7? @Yash confirms that Tor is not an everyday browsing tool…), however, there are certainly positive changes Mozilla could introduce without creating web compatibility issues:

        > It shares your location and download hashes with Google. it uses Google Analytics internally. It has a weak tracking blocker (using the shitty Disconnect lists). It allows most forms of prefetching. Fingerprinting defenses are inactive by default. It installs system level telemetry that spies on your default browser even if it isn’t Firefox. It has a backdoor that allows for remote code execution (called “Firefox Experiments” / Normandy). Its Sync requires E-Mail addresses. Leaks unique extension IDs via simple fetch requests. Connects speculatively to websites as you type addresses in the address bar. Uses Cloudflare for DoH (I am sure the DNS entries are safe in their hands!) etc.

        All of these are readily fixable if Mozilla cared, you see.

        > I know many folks in my personal life who are the same, I installed Firefox in their device but they started complaining because certain website showed an error

        You are overzealous in the encryption level you allow and / or have messed with certificates and certificate revocation. Could also be an overzealously configured adblocker.

        > so I leave them on the default settings in Firefox which is certainly better than Chrome and its many Chromium forks even Brave.

        It’s better than Chrome, but certainly not better than Brave by default. Brave has none of the privacy issues I’ve cited above and that is not even all of the problems of default FF.

        > When you mention Tor, I think you should carefully mention it as streaming a Live match and many more things are not possible in it.

        Oh, I am careful there. I am always saying that it is NOT a general use browser… However, when people like @Anon7 erroneously claim that the Tor Project uses Firefox as a base because it is oh so private (instead or the real reason: The Tor project predating Chromium…), the privacy issues of Firefox that the Tor project has to solve need to be discussed to put this into context. That Tor’s configuration is not workable for most people out there is to be understood when entering into this discussion.

        To be frank, I would be satisfied enough if Mozilla at least aspired to a default level of privacy of Brave, that would already be progress in their case. No need to replicate Tor.

        > someone who can change it to achieve more privacy.

        The risk of fingerprinting yourself in the process of touching Firefox’s settings is great, though. We have already discussed this, so I think there is no need to rinse and repeat. Bad defaults are not without consequences in terms of the fingerprinting risk associated with changing them. Defaults matter, but the majority of gHacks spectacularly fails to understand this.

        > alternatives to giant monopoly tools, atleast for those who understand the dangers of reduced competition in any field.

        I am not into feel good opposition theater. Show me the track record of Mozilla’s opposition to their Google paymasters, and I’ll buy into all this make believe nonsense. I promise.

      16. Anon7 said on April 18, 2021 at 8:37 am
        Reply

        > Tor is not an everyday browsing tool

        More than 2 million people use Tor everyday. Brave has around 3 million. Not a massive difference. Tor project has statistics of how many are connecting to the network, and its in the millions every month. So for millions it is an everyday browser. Brave is nowhere near as privacy focused as Tor is. Brave is psuedo privacy when compared to tor. And even psuedo privacy when more closely compared to hardened FF which is what Tor is built on with onion network built in.

        Brave still leaks canvas and it was months before their atrocious tor windows got a hotfix, they never let their their users know the problem existed for months, it was only when tech sites started talking about it, they decided to fix it.

        Not a decent privacy track record at all and oh then there was hijacking of urls too.

        > default level

        Irrelevant when FF is open source and heavily cuntomizable.

        Mozilla do have a business to run, and some things FF users can put up with as long as things can be customized.

        So keep going on and on on your crusade. It must be getting really tiresome and pointless for you at this point trying to get FF users to switch to an inferior browser.

        Chuckle.

      17. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 6:15 pm
        Reply

        @IH

        > I have literally listed privacy issues of Firefox in a factual manner.

        In your own mind only.

        FF users do not take you seriously.

        You carefully cherrypick articles to suit your own confirmation bias and it is very repetitive, predictable, and obsessive.

        FF users can show links describing how FF Is a good secure browser, funny how FF users do not feel the need to do this 24/7 like you do though.

        I can post links describing how Brave let the tor window breakage issue rest for months without fixing it with a hotfix and only really started to care when tech sites started to report on it. Privacy browser my ass!

        Or other links about their fingerprinting problems.

        Could not be bothered though, because i already know Brave is sub-par when compared to FF. I have my rant here and there but i’m not obsessed to the level you are about FF.

        > You are fairly dumb if you don’t understand that open source vs. closed source says literally nothing about the exploit mitigations that are in place.

        Just look at what your’re typing? Can you not see the crap you type?

        With open source the code can be checked to see what it is doing, to check that it is not malware or spyware etc.

        Christ, you’re so mentally challenged that you can not even comprehend that.

        > Some of the most secure software on the planet is closed source

        Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman would beg to differ. They avoid closed source.

        > Windows is a high profile target and their security is naturally more advanced

        So advanced that users of windows have to purchase anti-virus software to even feel comfortable in using such a targeted and insecure, even unreliable constantly unstable crashing blue screen mess of an OS.

        Credulous Iron Heart and his cherrypicking of pro-M$ articles. Yawn and Chuckle.

        Linux and Apple do not even need anti-virus to be secure.

      18. Anon7 said on April 17, 2021 at 8:24 pm
        Reply

        @IH

        > You focus on the engine

        Because thats all that matters.

        Politics do not matter, only the engine.

      19. Yash said on April 18, 2021 at 7:54 am
        Reply

        @Anon7
        Iron Heart understanding level is different, very different, he can twist a paragraph so that it loses its original content. Two line copy-pasting and ignoring everything is his style. No wonder some people were frustrated about the life choices he makes. But since someone thinks closed source or giant monopoly tools are better because of market share and all that nonsense, and again twisting info about Tor which is a different tool, can be used for many things but some kinks like with any software comes along with it as well, I guess I have to leave him in his imaginary world.
        For us real world folks, FLOSS software is more than sufficient to replace most everyday tools of monopoly.

      20. Iron Heart said on April 19, 2021 at 12:07 am
        Reply

        @Yash

        > he can twist a paragraph so that it loses its original content. Two line copy-pasting and ignoring everything is his style.

        It’s OK to be taught a lesson or to lose an argument, revenge-lying is not. Sometimes I need to disseminate parts of comments because I want to highlight to which specific part I am responding, or to specifically clarify misunderstandings which I feel you or @Anon7 in particular always repeat.

        > But since someone thinks closed source or giant monopoly tools are better because of market share and all that nonsense

        I never said they were “better”, whatever that means in your world. I said that their exploit mitigations are superior to those of the alternatives (Firefox & Linux in this case), which is irrefutably true – if you care to look at the facts for once (won’t happen, I know).

        > and again twisting info about Tor which is a different tool,

        Where did I “twist info about Tor”? I can’t seem to remember. You are just lying here.

        > I guess I have to leave him in his imaginary world.

        At least I don’t mix up unrelated topics and repeat the same asinine claims over and over again, despite perfectly logical refutations having been presented already.

        > For us real world folks, FLOSS software is more than sufficient to replace most everyday tools of monopoly.

        Chromium is also FOSS software, genius. And as far as Windows is concerned, good luck replacing this with Linux, especially in work environments. I think 90%+ of “real world folks” would disagree with you here.

        Can we end the discussion here or do you plan to further waste my time with the same old non-arguments? Because that is what it is at this stage, a pure waste of time.

      21. Iron Heart said on April 18, 2021 at 6:25 pm
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > More than 2 million people use Tor everyday. Brave has around 3 million. Not a massive difference.

        Brave actually has 25 million monthly active users and 8 million daily active users:

        https://brave.com/25m-mau/

        > Brave is nowhere near as privacy focused as Tor is. Brave is psuedo privacy when compared to tor.

        This is unsurprising, Brave is a general use browser trying to strike a balance between privacy and usability. In Tor, privacy always trumps usability because it is an ANONYMITY TOOL. Apples and oranges at its finest.

        > hardened FF

        Fingerprinting magnet. Enjoy being unique.

        > which is what Tor is built on

        Yeah but Tor enables these defenses by default, eliminating the fingerprinting / uniqueness issue that you create by modifying Firefox. Firefox and Tor can be told apart at least at the network level if not via feature detection.

        > Brave still leaks canvas

        Cool story, bro. Firefox still leaks unique extension IDs via simple fetch requests:

        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1405971

        Reported in 2017, no fix in sight. Let’s see if Brave will be letting a bug rot for 4 years. That Firefox has such a leak is especially embarrassing because its fingerprinting defenses are supposed to be much more advanced at this point, whereas Brave’s fingerprinting defenses are still young and decidedly still a work in progress. Also, no browser is leak-free. This is utopia-level bullshit.

        > months before their atrocious tor windows got a hotfix

        At least they are still fixing their shit, whereas Firefox has 20 years old bugs from the Netscape era still unresolved. LOL.

        Also, if you consider Brave’s Tor windows a Tor replacement, you are simply too stupid to remain on gHacks /s, because Brave can’t generate Tor’s common fingerprint anyway as it uses a different engine.

        > Not a decent privacy track record

        But still better than the one of Mozilla, may I remind you again that Brave has none of these issues:

        > It shares your location and download hashes with Google. it uses Google Analytics internally. It has a weak tracking blocker (using the shitty Disconnect lists). It allows most forms of prefetching. Fingerprinting defenses are inactive by default. It installs system level telemetry that spies on your default browser even if it isn’t Firefox. It has a backdoor that allows for remote code execution (called “Firefox Experiments” / Normandy). Its Sync requires E-Mail addresses. Leaks unique extension IDs via simple fetch requests. Connects speculatively to websites as you type addresses in the address bar. Uses Cloudflare for DoH (I am sure the DNS entries are safe in their hands!) etc.

        > there was hijacking of urls too.

        I have already exposed this bullshit of yours for what it is, so I guess you are just being malicious at this point. Nothing got “hijacked”, Brave legitimately used a referral on an official partner websites and even gave the user the option not to use it despite the associated loss of income. It was not a privacy issue because the referral was static (not generated per user), so it was deliberately made worthless for tracking.

        Mozilla does the very same thing for Google search, but you choose to overlook it like a good hypocrite. Technically, Mozilla “hijacks” any Google search performed within the browser with their own referral as brokered in their search deal.

        Additionally, I think Firefox users should remain silent on the matter of “hijacking” (term used correctly in my case), considering the fact that Mozilla is not above hitting the browser with malware:

        https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-which-slurps-user-browsing-data/

        > Irrelevant

        Don’t think so, Brave has better out of the box privacy and this is how most people would use the browser, with the defaults unchanged. Plus, there is the fingerprinting risk associated with cluelessly modifying Firefox. @Yash does not understand this, and you don’t understand this either.

        > trying to get FF users to switch to an inferior browser.

        Use whatever you want, lol. I am just doing away with your cluelessness and hypocrisy where applicable.

        > FF users do not take you seriously.

        They don’t have to take *me* seriously, but they probably should take the *privacy issues of Firefox* seriously.

        > You carefully cherrypick articles

        At least I am providing sources, sources that you are woefully unable to refute.

        > FF users can show links describing how FF Is a good secure browser, funny how FF users do not feel the need to do this 24/7 like you do though.

        Well then, go ahead. Refute any of the points I raise with articles proving the contrary. Can’t wait.

        > I can post links describing how Brave let the tor window breakage issue rest for months

        Oh, so you have articles about a historical bug of Brave that is already fixed? Very impressive! At least the privacy issues I am listing for FF are all valid still, you can’t say the same about the bullshit you come up with.

        > i already know Brave is sub-par when compared to FF

        :D

        Firefox has no advantages. Hence why it’s failing.

        > Just look at what your’re typing? Can you not see the crap you type?

        What I said is factually correct. Open source vs. closed source has nothing to do with the de facto security of any application. Those are unrelated topics which you still mistake for the same topic.

        > With open source the code can be checked to see what it is doing, to check that it is not malware or spyware etc.

        This is all well and good. If there are weak exploit mitigations, seeing the code won’t help you. They would still need fixing. If there is a security issue, seeing the code won’t help you. It still needs fixing. Open source does not improve the the STATE OF THE APPLICATION, it just means that you can look at the code. Closed source software can be more secure and it is also receiving scrutiny, how do you think Windows security issues surface? Because nobody can intrude? LOL.

        > Christ, you’re so mentally challenged

        But even in that supposed state of mind, I am apparently still able to substantiate an argument while you are still unable to do that. So if I am mentallx challenged, then what are you?

        > Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman would beg to differ. They avoid closed source.

        Yeah, because they are the fathers of open source and their livelihood depends on it. But even Torvalds and Stallman (Who recently got kicked in the butt by Mozilla on Twitter, did you notice that? Ungratefulness in full force there…) would tell you that open source vs. closed source says nothing about the exploit mitigations that are in place. Those are the factual state of an application and your ability to take a look at it does not change the factual state of the application. It just means that you can look at it.

        > So advanced that users of windows have to purchase anti-virus software

        Windows still has stronger exploit mitigations than Linux. The amount of malware that targets it is related to its market share. If Linux suddenly had Windows’ market share, malware authors would have a field day because the only way in which Linux can be described as “secure” is security via obscurity.

        > Linux and Apple do not even need anti-virus to be secure.

        Hardly any malware author targets them because hardly anyone uses them (compared to Windows). When you are not being challenged because you are so irrelevant, you will never know “how good you really are”. Microsoft has to constantly deal with malware because of Windows’ market share, so it’s unsurprising that more R&D goes into securing it and that they are much more experienced in that field.

        > Politics do not matter, only the engine.

        :………….D

        LOL

        What good is Mozilla’s own engine if they implement Google’s web standard proposals all the same? Care to elaborate? At least Brave disables shit like Web Bundles while Mozilla cheers it on, only goes to show that you are not too bright if you rely on pseudo-opposition that has no actual track record of successfully opposing Google.

      22. Anon7 said on April 19, 2021 at 7:34 am
        Reply

        @IH

        Yawn zzzzz.

        How long did it take you to type up that nonsense? A few hours? Seems like it.

        Chuckle.

        > Windows still has stronger exploit mitigations than Linux.

        Windows is the most malware-ridden OS out there buddy. Spamming pro-M$ links does not change that fact. Cherrypick all you like, you are proving nothing.

        > if Linux suddenly had Windows’ market share

        Linux has more market share overall than windows. Because of Mobile. Mobile gets nowhere near the problems windows does with security. Its only on desktop that windows has more market share and its a complete shit show.

        Youl have no clue what you’re on about.

        Best you quit annoying people with FUD, because it makes you look ridiculous.

        Nothing you say ever makes much sense.

      23. Iron Heart said on April 19, 2021 at 10:22 am
        Reply

        @Anon7

        > Windows is the most malware-ridden OS out there buddy.

        Again, are you this * [Editor:removed]? Windows gets targeted more often based on its market share. Linux’s security is basically just security via obscurity.

        > Linux has more market share overall than windows. Because of Mobile. Mobile gets nowhere near the problems windows does with security.

        Android is much different from a Linux distro. It’s a whole separate OS. What are you even talking about?

        Plus, private persons are the preferred target of malware authors, and guess what most private persons use? Hint: Not Linux.

        > Nothing you say ever makes much sense.

        …to you. And I didn’t expect any different.

        > How long did it take you to type up that nonsense? A few hours? Seems like it.

        Yeah you come up with a whole lot of bullshit to debunk. Takes time indeed, time that I could really have spent in more useful ways.

      24. Anon7 said on April 19, 2021 at 9:05 pm
        Reply

        > Android is much different from a Linux distro

        Linux also has the largest installed base of all operating systems.

        Android is run on the Linux kernel. This goes to show how little you know about Gnu/Linux. But still you feel the need to spread FUD about it.

        Linux is used on loads of tech from smartphones to routers, to cars, to games consoles etc. Plus more.

        Also used on the TOP500 supercomputers.

        Like i said to you previously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

        I only glance at your posts, do not fully read them, because i know you spread FUD for the sake of spreading FUD. You like arguing for the sake of arguing, i don’t.

        Since you are on about your time, go spend it more valuably then rather than trolling my comments.

        Like i said you are starting to look ridiculous.

      25. jake said on April 20, 2021 at 5:13 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart It must be hard educating such a simpleton as Anon7, I don’t even know why you bother, at this point either he’s beyond stupid or he’s trolling you, (I think is the latter) you’ve given him fact after fact and yet he still feigns ignorance and keeps repeating his same used-up rhetoric.

        He can’t provide sources because all of his arguments are based on his feelings and beliefs, he’s a CULTIST, he basically sees Firefox as a religion and mozilla as his god, no matter how much information you give him and how much you prove to him that mozilla is a Google slave, he will ignore it, because he’s unable to take any information that goes against his belief that mozilla is perfect, all while bashing Chromium and Google for basically the same things that mozilla supports, when Google does it: IT’S BAD when mozilla does the same thing: IT’S GREAT while praising it for being open source even though Chromium is open source too, that’s basically @Anon7 in a nutshell.

        But what do you expect from someone that is trying to make people believe that Chromium is closed source just because Google and Microsoft provide code to it, that’s not what makes a program closed source or open source, all Chromium code is open and public and can be audited by anyone with enough time (and it has been done multiple times by many people) yet he says it’s bad because big companies work on it, while ignoring that big companies have provided lots of code to Linux too including Microsoft and Google themselves.

        This guy is a huge ignorant dunce, he’s not a programmer, he has never seen any code in his life, he has never even seen Chromium or Firefox code, you can tell immediately by just reading one of his comments that they’re based on his feelings and fervent fanaticism, he doesn’t know what makes closed or open source different, or about the security of both, his whole mantra is FREE and OPEN SOURCE = beTtEr (without even understanding why, or why closed source has advantages and might be preferred sometimes and be more secure and professionally made) he just follows what others in the Linux community say like a sheep, which is very ironic coming from someone who calls everyone else a sheep, but you know how ignorant morons love to feel superior and more knowledgeable even though they know next to nothing about what they talk about and can’t even realize that they mindlessly follow a flock of their own. My advice is to just ignore them, cultists can never be saved.

      26. Anon7 said on April 20, 2021 at 7:41 am
        Reply

        @jake

        You have no clue what you are on about. Ranting for the sake of ranting.

        > big companies have provided lots of code to Linux too including Microsoft and Google themselves

        FUD.

        Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman are the masterminds behind Gnu/Linux. They are the ones who built up the code over decades. Not Big-Tech.

        Big tech have no business being involved with Linux, its like the fox in the chicken pen.

        Many in the Linux community are uncomfortable with it.

        And just Lulz at you and Iron Heart giving me an education just lulz.

        You sound like another one of IH and his chromium pals content with inferiority.

        Chromium open source? Very funny, chromium was built for closed source chrome. Forks of it will be forever dealing with crap from upstream if they continue to use it.

        Do your research before you comment.

      27. Anon7 said on April 20, 2021 at 8:04 am
        Reply

        @jake

        > why closed source has advantages and might be preferred sometimes and be more secure and professionally made

        It has no advantages whatsoever.

        Closed source = users have no choice but to trust what the vendor says about how the particular piece of software operates. Since the code itself can not be seen, there is no way to fully verify whether or not what you’re being told is correct. = Public relations lip service = Potential for huge security flaws.

        Open Source = Transparency. = More opportunity to evaluate the security of the code. More visibility into what changes are made to the code base. How often dependencies are updated etc = A more complete picture of the overall security.

        You are the one who sounds like they never seen code.

        > he just follows what others in the Linux community say like a sheep,

        Oh great a M$ user feeling intimidated by Gnu LInux.

        Chuckles

  11. Anonymous said on April 16, 2021 at 12:41 pm
    Reply

    > HTTPS is the default protocol when users enter domain names without protocol in the Chrome address bar.

    Does that mean that “HTTPS Everywhere” and “Smart HTTPS” are obsolete on (Ungoogled) Chromium as well now? I abandoned these two extensions (actually FF-only extension “HTTPZ” instead of “Smart HTTPS”) on Firefox, when its HTTPS-Only Mode became sufficiently stable, but kept on using them in chromium-based browsers.

    1. Yash said on April 16, 2021 at 7:45 pm
      Reply

      No they are not obsolete because with those extensions http version will not load if configured that way. In default setting it will try to upgrade http to https but if not upgraded, will load http version(atleast that’s how Bromite-a chromium fork works, so same for Chrome)

  12. Sandra Maarsen said on April 18, 2021 at 12:37 pm
    Reply

    Google Chrome browser 90 has a weakness when displaying web pages that work with background images and calculations for them.

    The weakness is that after loading such a page, the browser freezes briefly, for about a second, during which time you can neither scroll nor click. After this second, the page can be used normally.

  13. Anon7 said on April 19, 2021 at 7:56 am
    Reply

    @IH

    > What I said is factually correct. Open source vs. closed source has nothing to do with the de facto security of any application.

    Jesus christ, if there was a thumb voting system on here you would be

    -100 for that comment.

  14. Anonymous said on April 19, 2021 at 5:45 pm
    Reply

    @Yash: Thanks for your answer! So I’m going to keep “HTTPS Everywhere” and “Smart HTTPS” on Ungoogled Chromium for a while.

  15. MR MUSTASHE said on May 15, 2021 at 8:50 am
    Reply

    GNUnet!… or bust!

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.