Tor Browser

---

What Tor Browser actually does

The reference implementation of the uniformity model. Rather than hiding one user among many by randomising, it works to make every user's readings the same, and it accepts real usability costs — fixed window sizes, letterboxing, disabled surfaces — to get there.

What can and cannot be measured about Tor Browser

This entry has no repository, so none of the usual repository fields exist for it — no push date, no release tag, no archive flag, no licence identifier. Its state comes from one measurement only: the register requested the address and recorded what came back. Anything in the range 200 to 399 makes a non-repository entry ACTIVE, and that clause is the one the first edition of the rubric did not have at all, which is why product site entries carried no state under it.

Read that for exactly what it is. It says the thing is reachable. It does not say the page still works correctly, because no HTTP status can carry that. Where a stronger signal exists — a repository, a version, a dated revision — this register prefers it, and where one does not, it prints the weaker signal and names it as weak rather than dressing it up.

Where Tor Browser sits in this catalogue

Tor Browser is filed in section 01, open-source anti-detect browsers & forks, whose scope is this: Browsers whose source you can read: anti-detect Firefox and Chromium forks, hardened builds, and the profile managers built on top of them. An entry sits in exactly one section here. Where a project could defensibly go in two, it is placed where a reader would look for it first rather than where it fits most tidily, and that is an editorial decision rather than a measured one.

Filed beside it in the same section: Brave Browser (ACTIVE), Mullvad Browser (ACTIVE), Tor Browser fingerprinting protections (ACTIVE). Comparing an entry against its own section-mates is more informative than comparing it against the catalogue as a whole, because everything in a section is answering roughly the same question and the differences left over are the ones that matter.

It is published under FLOSS, alongside the rest of the FLOSS entries in this register, and it sits with everything else currently marked ACTIVE. Read those two facets together: a permissively licensed project that stopped shipping is not a safer dependency than a copyleft one that did not, and a filter on one axis alone will tell you the wrong thing.

Substitutes for the same job, with no claim that either is better: Mullvad Browser. The alternative relation is symmetric and carries no ranking, because this register publishes no ranking of any kind. The full Tor Browser comparison table sets all of them side by side on licence, push date, release cadence and state.

What to settle before you adopt Tor Browser

It is listed at its download page and carries no repository fields here, so its state rests on the link check alone. For the surface-by-surface record, read the fingerprinting-protections documentation listed alongside it rather than inferring the behaviour from the binary.