Advice Request Privacy Possum. Are there any analogues?

[Zorro]

Good day. Found an extension for privacy - Privacy Possum (browser recommended it). But I see that it has not updated for almost two years. How well does it still perform its function? Or is there no longer a need for it? Are there any analogues?

 

[SpiderWeb]

It's redundant. uBlock Origin does more than it can do without breaking your browsing experience.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Browser extensions aren’t for privacy. That’s not how it works. Instead they’re decrease your privacy as they mostly need all reading your website behaviour.
extensions also increase attack surface.

if you want protect against tracker, use browser internal protection with Tutorial - NextDNS: a DoH/ DoT guide and combine that with Updates - Chromium-Edge "3-Browser-Profiles" Solution

 

[Arequire]

As it's abandoned I wouldn't recommend using it. It's going to have an increasingly long list of issues the longer it's out of development.

It's third-party cookie blocking can be activated in any browser via the settings, and Brave already has all Privacy Possum's other features built-in.
Other browsers/extensions generally work off blocking known instances of tracking (Firefox & Edge block etags and fingerprinting from known tracking domains), which works somewhat as blocking network access for a tracking domain/script stops it from accessing your browser's storage or transmitting information back to its proprietor, but they do nothing to restrict non-blocked entities from accessing your your browsing information (which is what PP did with its referer header/etag blocking).

One other thing: Privacy Possum's fingerprinting protection worked by randomising browser characteristics every time it detected an instance of fingerprinting. The only browser that randomises its fingerprint is Brave, which it does regardless of whether it an instance of fingerprinting is taking place or not. Other browsers either try to block domains involved in fingerprinting (Firefox & Edge) or make their fingerprint uniform across all users (Safari & Tor).

As for other solutions besides browsers, AdGuard desktop comes the closest to replicating PP's feature set. It allows you to disable third-party cache access (blocks etags) and manipulate the referer to display a fake URL to third-parties. AdGuard's extension also allows for referer manipulation but doesn't allow the blocking of cache access like its desktop counterpart does.

(Edited my response to be more informative and understandable.)

 

[Zorro]

As it's abandoned I wouldn't recommend using it. It's going to have an increasingly long list of issues the longer it's out of development.

It's third-party cookie blocking can be activated in any browser via the settings, and Brave already has all Privacy Possum's other features built-in.
Other browsers/extensions generally work off blocking known instances of tracking (Firefox & Edge block etags and fingerprinting from known tracking domains), which works somewhat as blocking network access for a tracking domain/script stops it from accessing your browser's storage or transmitting information back to its proprietor, but they do nothing to restrict non-blocked entities from accessing your your browsing information (which is what PP did with its referer header/etag blocking).

One other thing: Privacy Possum's fingerprinting protection worked by randomising browser characteristics every time it detected an instance of fingerprinting. The only browser that randomises its fingerprint is Brave, which it does regardless of whether it an instance of fingerprinting is taking place or not. Other browsers either try to block domains involved in fingerprinting (Firefox & Edge) or make their fingerprint uniform across all users (Safari & Tor).

As for other solutions besides browsers, AdGuard desktop comes the closest to replicating PP's feature set. It allows you to disable third-party cache access (blocks etags) and manipulate the referer to display a fake URL to third-parties. AdGuard's extension also allows for referer manipulation but doesn't allow the blocking of cache access like its desktop counterpart does.

(Edited my response to be more informative and understandable.)

I installed the privacy possum in the browser and indeed the lack of development affects its performance, on most sites it spontaneously turns off. Deleted.
As for the Adguard desktop program, I have a problem with it that when it works, browsers cannot establish a secure connection with sites, sites cannot load by https. I solved this problem with Adguard technical support, sent logs, traces, but it did not help, the problem remained, despite the fact that I followed all the support recommendations. I had to uninstall the program, although I bought a lifetime license.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

As for the Adguard desktop program, I have a problem with it that when it works, browsers cannot establish a secure connection with sites, sites cannot load by https. I solved this problem with Adguard technical support, sent logs, traces, but it did not help, the problem remained, despite the fact that I followed all the support recommendations.

I never use their desktop program but sounds like they use SSL/ TLS manipulation which means they replace original website certs with own so they can filter stuff. Of course, that's a security nightmare.
NextDNS service provide a similar "feature" but only for more beautiful error sites instead of browser internal one - it's not a requirement, not even for SSL/ TLS sites.

 

[Arequire]

browsers cannot establish a secure connection with sites, sites cannot load by https.

I'd expect that to happen with Firefox, as it has its own certificate storage that's independent from the one Windows uses. Odd if it happened with other non-Firefox based browsers though.

If the desktop's a no-go, best recommendation I can give is their extension. No cache blocking unfortunately but a lot of browsers allow you to clear the cache every time you close the browser, so any etags will only be able to be used to identify you within individual browsing sessions.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

so any etags will only be able to be used to identify you within individual browsing sessions.

These are not the only ways used for tracking. Blocking will only end in unique fingerprint.
Just use browser defaults so you can hide yourself in the mass.

 

[Arequire]

These are not the only ways used for tracking.

I know. I was purely referencing tracking using etags. And with how heavy AdGuard's extension is compared to uBlock, and with how long Edge takes to close when clearing the cache on exit, I wouldn't bother utilising either.

 

[blackice]

These are not the only ways used for tracking. Blocking will only end in unique fingerprint.
Just use browser defaults so you can hide yourself in the mass.

I thought the mass were using too many extensions and increasing their attack surface?

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

I thought the mass were using too many extensions and increasing their attack surface?

They're just use the browser at it is. Many not even know what extensions are.