HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
brave
brave-browser
Web Development2018–2026
brave / brave-browser

brave-browser

Brave browser for Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, Windows.

145Distinct people
203Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
24.2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Brave browser for Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, Windows.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

edit2: Nevermind all this, Brave did in fact implement protected content this earlier this year https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/413 I still can't use brave to…

dkhenry used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year203 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-06-21 03:22:42 UTC to 2026-09-28 20:15:01 UTC.

0102030402018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 0 submissions, 11 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 30 mentions; 0 submissions, 30 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 31 mentions; 6 submissions, 25 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 43 mentions; 2 submissions, 41 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 32 mentions; 2 submissions, 30 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 22 mentions; 2 submissions, 20 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 13 mentions; 2 submissions, 11 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 0 submissions, 11 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 1 submissions, 9 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11011
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC30030
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC31625
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC43241
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC32230
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC22220
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC13211
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11011
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1019

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 12, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Brave Browser This repository is not needed for building the browser and only holds issues, releases and the wiki. The source code and contributions are at https://github.com/brave/brave-core. You can visit our website to get the latest stable release. Resources Issues: Bug reports and feature requests for the Brave Browser. Releases: Releases of Brave Browser hosted on GitHub. See Brave Release Schedule for more information. Wiki: Documentation for developers, administrators, and power users. User-facing documentation is available at the Brave help center. Documentation and guides: Additional technical information, primarily for developers. Contributing Please see the contributing guidelines. To get started building Brave, hop over to the Wiki. Security Policy Please see the security policy. Community Join the Q&A community if you'd like to get more involved with Brave. You can ask for help, discuss features you'd like to see, and a lot more. We'd love to have your help so that we can continue improving Brave. You can also ask questions and interact in the community-guest channel on Brave Software's Slack. Help us translate Brave to your language by submitting translations at https://explore.transifex.com/brave/brave_en/. Follow @brave on X for important news and announcements.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

203 sources
Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowledge users that's carrying it forward. I see so many 'privacy' influencers that recommend it and Chromium, and then Firefox with no mention of FOSS options like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, IronFox, etc [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790 [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f... [2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi... [3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...
In Firefox for iOS now has a native adblocker
Brave engineer here. > "Monopoly money for watching ads" What does Firefox pay you for piping your keystrokes off to Google? BAT is a reward for your attention; far better arrangement and exchange than what has existed up to this point. It's not perfect, but what's your solution? > "injected affiliate links" You seem to be a little free and loose with _facts_. Rather than exchange your data for revenue, Brave explores revenue streams which won't keep us up at night. One such consideration was affiliate links. We had a couple (quite literally a couple/few), that would appear when you typed certain crypto-related keywords into the address bar. When suggestions were offered, so too would be our affiliate option. This solution presented a means by which users could support Brave without involving their data. Unfortunately, a UI/UX bug caused
Read the rest
the affiliate option to appear even for a fully-qualified domain, which meant a user who quickly typed a URL for which we offered an affiliate link and mashed Enter, could unintentionally have selected the affiliate option. That isn't _injection_. The issue was identified pretty quickly, and a patch was sent out. Guess how much Brave made from the buggy behavior before it was patched? I'll help you: $0. You can read more at https://brave.com/blog/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/, though I must warn you ahead of time that it isn't as exciting or shocking as you might have liked. You know what would be SHOCKING though? Imagine if Mozilla had tried to do something quite similar. Oh, wait… https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2021/10/firefox-revea.... > "installed their commercial VPN without asking" This one is actually somewhat true. We did indeed ship an inert service for some Windows users. The goal was to have the VPN option be immediately available to users who wished to purchase it, as a means of supporting Brave. Details are in the GitHub issue: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/33726. > "and leaked DNS traffic when using Tor in its 'privacy' mode." Oh, this is one of my favorites. It's a classic story with depth, misdirection, unexpected side-effects of decisions made years in between, and more! This one is the type of thing I would have expected to read about in _Joel on Software_ many years ago. So, we shipped a browser with a "privacy" mode, much like everybody else. But, we weren't fans of the common approach used by Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and others. Their approach doesn't really make you _incognito_, or _private_; it just creates an ephemeral account locally and basically does some file-system cleanup. We wanted something stronger! As fans of the Tor project, we opted to bake-in support for Tor as an optional enhancement to private tabs. This would give you one extra, super-thick layer of incognito-ness. Tor Private Tabs were shipped back in mid 2018, and the next couple of years were pretty awesome. Brave users who enabled optional Tor support enjoyed a superior experience to that found in other popular browsers. Years later—as the tracker wars waged on—some data-harvesters got the idea that they could evade detection by way of CNAMEs, giving them first-party privileges. So in late 2020, Brave shipped CNAME decloaking, unmasking more trackers than Mystery Inc., and dramatically expanding the privacy moat. But the story wouldn't be all that exciting if it didn't have a twist, right!? Brave's new CNAME-decloaking didn't consider the Tor scenario, and performed DNS lookups outside of an existing proxy! While the combination of these features didn't make Brave as porous as ordinary "incognito mode", it did punch an embarrassing hole in the Tor boundary: page traffic still went through Tor, but CNAME adblocking DNS lookups accidentally went out through the user's normal DNS path. For that narrow slice of activity, Brave drifted uncomfortably close to what Mozilla calls "private browsing": https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/common-myths-about-priv... ("Private browsing [in Firefox] doesn't hide your activity from your ISP, mask your IP address or location, or stop websites from identifying or tracking you…) > "I'd say Mozilla dodged a bullet there." Let's check in again in another 5 years ;)
In Leaving Mozilla
I think you've missed the point entirely. The point is that if everyone is using a single browser (not just Chrome/Chromium) then that actor gets disproportionate control over the internet. That's not good for anyone. The specific gripe to Chromium is that _Google_ gets that say, and I think they are less trustworthy than other actors. I'm not asking anyone to trust Mozilla, but anyone suggesting Mozilla is less trustworthy than Google probably has a bridge to sell you. Remember that being Chromium still means that Brave is reliant upon Google. That leads to things like this[0,1]. Remember, the chromium source code is quite large, which is why things like [0] aren't so easily found. I also want to quote a quote from [0.1] This is interesting because it is a clear violation of the idea that browser vendors should not give preference to t
Read the rest
heir websites over anyone elses. That wouldn't be the first time people have found Google preferencing their browser and it is pretty known this happens with YouTube. Do we really want ANY company having such control over the internet? Do we really want Google to? > https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity > https://brave.com/transparency/ I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here. That Brave has 64% of the number of users as Firefox? That Brave users really like Gemini, Coinbase, and Uphold? That Brave users are linking their Brave account to sites like Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, GitHub, Vimeo, and Twitch? That Brave Ads is tracking via the state level? Honestly I have more questions looking at the Brave "transparency" report, as it seems to have more information about users than Firefox... If you're extra concerned about privacy and that's your reason for Brave, then may I suggest the Mullvad browser[2]? It is a fork of Firefox and they work with Tor to minimize tracking and fingerprinting. You get your security, privacy, and out from under the boot of Google. [0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/39660 [0.1] https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/9/hangout_servicesthunkjs... [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-to-kill-... [2] https://mullvad.net/en/browser
In Yt-dlp: Upcoming new requirements for YouTube downloads
Are you referring to the Manifest V2 extensions supported by Brave? The original extension creators were made fully aware of those plans ahead of time and have been in contact with Brave since then, e.g.: https://github.com/hackademix/noscript/issues/359 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/29... https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/41173#issuecom... I'm not sure how you can interpret forking open source codebases as a "shady" behavior (it's one of the most important reasons to use open source in the first place), but in this case there is a high demand for said extensions and Brave has provided the only way to continue doing so on a Chromium rendering engine. (I am one of the devs who worked on the spec for this feature)
In Hardening Firefox – a checklist for improved browser privacy
Brave has built in fingerprinting protection (https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Fingerprinting-P...), that's enabled by default. It seems like it's less aggressive than firefox's though (since firefox's fingerprint protection is disabled by default because it breaks things), and it doesn't seem to be able to block this companies fingerprinting tech. I got the same ID in a regular window and private browsing window. The brave shields setting section also has an option for blocking scripts, which may work. It prevents the demo from being able to show an identifier for the user at all, but I'm not sure if it's preventing identification or just preventing the displaying of the identification.
In Web fingerprinting is worse than I thought (2023)

Showing the 15 most recent of 203 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.