>A busy public WiFi controlled by a hostile party is more likely to engage in port scans and other intrusive probes, so yes, this advice holds extra weight.
I mean if you define the party as hostile then yeah but that also all applies to a non-public network controlled by a hostile party but [Citation Needed] that this is something that people are likely to encounter in the wild. If were at all common it would be pretty noticeable because you'd notice any certificate shenanigans and it wouldn't take that long for a technical person to come along and notice any port scanning. That's before considering that OS's typically have a more aggressive firewall posture on public networks to begin with not making them particularly juicy targets.
>Brave browser does not implement this URL after a cursory examination.
Brave has to be a snowflake but it's just a restyling of the same settings page: brave://settings/security
>Google has also unquestionably had a caustic and corrosive impact upon privacy in a myriad of realms. They can and do receive subpoenas constantly, and the only way out of their databases is wiping all of their closed-source components from your devices.
Security != Privacy and those are frequently completely at odds. It's hard to argue that public wifi is anything but a privacy nightmare but from a purely technical security perspective, I must just shrug at public wifi now.
Hostile guard and exit nodes are free to probe the origin and destination hosts, and this activity is unified on public WiFi. In Tor, they are separate issues on entry to and exit from the network. The issue is the same, and care should be taken. A hostile router will allow exactly this behavior, in both directions.
Your Brave URL does not work on my android device, nor is it listed in brave://about and is running v1.36.116.
OpenBSD does have a chrome://settings/security page, but makes no mention of DNS-over-HTTPS, and is currently at 93.0.4577.82 after a "pkg_add -u". I might check the Ubuntu snap later.
If you are compromised by a privacy issue, you are no less compromised than you are by a security issue. Your metadata in Google's systems is an attack surface that, for many people, would not outweigh the security benefits that their aggressive scanning awards.
I mean if you define the party as hostile then yeah but that also all applies to a non-public network controlled by a hostile party but [Citation Needed] that this is something that people are likely to encounter in the wild. If were at all common it would be pretty noticeable because you'd notice any certificate shenanigans and it wouldn't take that long for a technical person to come along and notice any port scanning. That's before considering that OS's typically have a more aggressive firewall posture on public networks to begin with not making them particularly juicy targets.
>Brave browser does not implement this URL after a cursory examination.
Brave has to be a snowflake but it's just a restyling of the same settings page: brave://settings/security
>Google has also unquestionably had a caustic and corrosive impact upon privacy in a myriad of realms. They can and do receive subpoenas constantly, and the only way out of their databases is wiping all of their closed-source components from your devices.
Security != Privacy and those are frequently completely at odds. It's hard to argue that public wifi is anything but a privacy nightmare but from a purely technical security perspective, I must just shrug at public wifi now.