Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mullvad Browser

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 434 posts

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#371

Post by lurtbancaster »

josephcsible wrote: post #358
lurtbancaster wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that if it's just Tor Browser without Tor, then there's functionally no reason to have that build be incompatible with Windows 7. Unless they deliberately coded it in like if OS=Win7/Win8 ; then Crash ; else Run Which would be a dick move, especially because Firefox, on which Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser are based, still supports Windows 7. --------- Now to your point. It is absolutely possible to run…

None of what you did makes Windows 7 secure enough to use safely in 2023.

As I mentioned in my previous, it really depends on your usecase.

In my usecase, it's extremely secure.

But, I'll be back after 5 to 10 years, and if I'm still using Windows 7, and if I remember you, I'll reply to you again, letting you know how well it's been going for me.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#372

Post by l8rlump »

notpushkin wrote: post #99
rtpg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the tor browser fork stay up to date quickly? I would be quite worried about stale browsers in this day and age, to an extent at least

I believe Tor is collaborating with Mozilla very closely, to the point that Mozilla includes patches from Tor Browser now: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift

I recently discovered the useful Firefox about:config setting “resistfingerprinting”, which I believe came from this collaboration.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#373

Post by cpeterso »

rtpg wrote: post #86
dathinab wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFIK it's a "fork" of the tor-browser (which is a fork of Firefox) but instead of connecting to the tor network you connect to a VPN. So you get all the in-browser tracking protection Firefox has (e.g. against fingerprinting) + the ones only the Tor browser has but without the drawbacks of the tor network and in turn without onion security.

Does the tor browser fork stay up to date quickly? I would be quite worried about stale browsers in this day and age, to an extent at least

The Tor desktop browser is based on Firefox ESR (Extended Support Release), Mozilla’s LTS branch of Firefox that receives security fixes for 14 months. The Tor Android browser is based on Mozilla’s regular Firefox Android browser, updated every four weeks.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#374

Post by cpeterso »

l8rlump wrote: post #372
notpushkin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Tor is collaborating with Mozilla very closely, to the point that Mozilla includes patches from Tor Browser now: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift

I recently discovered the useful Firefox about:config setting “resistfingerprinting”, which I believe came from this collaboration.

Yes, but beware that many websites are broken when “resistFingerprinting” is enabled. That’s why that mode is not enabled by default or an opt-in option in Firefox’s settings UI.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#375

Post by cpeterso »

Waterluvian wrote: post #264
brewdad wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really any worse than living on the Edge?

To be fair, this is a very pseudosubjective thing. I know my data point. And I feel my data point is plausible as a trend. For example, you don't need to do studies to know that "Diarrhea Browser" would be a bad name. Edge? I think it's sharp and techy and modern. So it seems at least... valid. But it also screams, to me at least, the classic Microsoft branding thing of, "this feels like a bunch of 50 year olds in a…

I bet “should begin with the letter E” was one of Microsoft’s requirements for selecting a new browser name so they could continue to use IE’s familiar “e” app icon.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#376

Post by SLWW »

I gotta say I have found Mullvad to be refreshing; they have good apps (you can get it running on most Linux systems with very little work) and I don't have to remember a password, just an ID number.

Stupid simple stuff, been using them for a long time (and guess what? no info shared, they don't EMAIL me every time they have a discount for a 3 year subscription discount like some VPN companies)

They just seem very honest and straight forward with their marketing. Never a bad moment.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#377

Post by JaggerFoo »

Anyone else unable to gpg verify the browser download. When I downloaded the VPN gpg verify was OK.

Nevermind, I had to follow instructions from the github page to download the TOR Browser Signing Key and verify.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#378

Post by freetime2 »

enlyth wrote: post #105
thejosh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like Mullvad. I haven't needed to use them much (mostly when my ISP has wonky routing and I need something semi-urgent), but their service is pretty good, their website feels like it's designed for the more "techy users". Their billing is the least sketchiest of VPN providers, with no ticking clocks, no upsell and other nonsense. I also like they provide a Wireguard file and a way to filter it, so it's super…

I share a VPN subscription with my father, I use it for torrenting so my ISP can't snoop on me, and he uses it to bypass geo blocking to watch UK shows (things like BritBox, Netflix, BBC etc.) in another country. Unfortunately, there is no way to legally pay for most of these services and watch them from abroad. I tried to get us to use Mullvad, as it was perfect for me, but for him it was constant problems with the…

This is good to know. I have been considering giving Mullvad a try, but getting around geo restrictions is my primary reason for using NordVPN.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#379

Post by louison11 »

867-5309 wrote: post #314
domh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It annoys me that the only way to access iPlayer from abroad is via a VPN. Surely opening it up and allowing international customers to pay some form of license fee could be a nice little revenue stream for the BBC? I'm guessing the reason is just "licensing issues" but if they're making the programmes then what's the problem? I'm sure there's an international market for watching the world class output from the BBC.

a few years ago I moved outside the UK and spent the best part of 3 months (on and off) trying to access BBC content, legally, still holding residency, paying domiciliary and employment taxes, and paying for a bladdy TV loicence of course, I wanted to do this for as close to free as possible, since plugging an aerial into a tv at home also cost next to nothing VPNs were already being detected and banned. I tried at l…

Can you or someone explain why so many Brits want to watch UK television from abroad?

I’m French living abroad and have never missed French TV. The quality of the content is just very sub-par compared to American shows. They just don’t have the budget to compete. Is the UK different because it’s English speaking and perhaps it has access to a wider market and thus more capital?

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#380

Post by jraph »

yucky wrote: post #363
jraph wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreliant on Chrome? If Chrome disappears, Brave ceases to exist. Brave totally relies on Google developers working on Chrome and do the vast majority of what it takes to build the browser. Brave only does superficial work in comparison. Brave may itself be privacy-focused but only exists thanks to Google's business model which is mostly tracking the world. So, yes, Brave is mostly funded by tracking since it is most…

> Unreliant on Chrome? Correct, completely forked from Chromium (not Chrome) and in separate development. Brave continues to roll out superior features while the rest of the Chromium world lags.

It does not matter that Brave lives in its own, separate source repository. This code is regularly rebased on Chromium.

Your cookies rely on the flour you use to make them even if they have chunks of chocolate that the flour doesn't have. No flour, no cookies. (Except in this case it's even worse, the cookies is already done, you just add some colors...).

I too can take chromium and put it in my own git repository and change some minor stuff. It will be "forked" and "separately" developed but it would not mean a thing.

You have a strange definition of not relying.

Post reply on HN