Which search engines perform client-side encryption of search queries before sending them to servers?
Executive summary
Search Encrypt is repeatedly documented in vendor and third‑party sources as performing client‑side encryption of search queries with a short‑lived key before sending them to its servers (company FAQ and posts) [1][2]. Other mainstream “privacy” engines in the results (DuckDuckGo, Startpage, Qwant, Brave Search, Searx, MetaGer, etc.) are described as encrypting connections (HTTPS) or not logging queries, but available sources do not say they perform client‑side query encryption the way Search Encrypt does [3][4][5][6].
1. Search Encrypt: the clearest claim of client‑side encryption
Search Encrypt’s own documentation and repeated write‑ups state it “utilizes client side encryption using a short lived key to encrypt your queries before sending them to our servers,” and that the key “expires shortly after the final use” (company FAQ and instructions) [1][2]. Multiple reviews and aggregator sites repeat the same language about encrypting queries locally and protecting browser history by leaving only encrypted terms in local history [7][8][9]. Those primary/fan‑site citations form the strongest direct evidence in the supplied set that a search engine advertises client‑side query encryption.
2. What “client‑side encryption” means in the available accounts
Sources describe Search Encrypt’s approach as an extra layer on top of standard Transport Layer Security (TLS/HTTPS), plus “perfect forward secrecy,” and a short‑lived local key used to render search terms unreadable in browser history and before transmission [1][2][7]. That phrasing implies two protections: (a) encrypted transport to the server (HTTPS) and (b) an additional local obfuscation/encryption step for the query payload itself prior to the HTTPS session [1][2]. The materials do not provide cryptographic detail beyond those marketing claims; independent technical audits are not cited in the provided results [2][1].
3. Other privacy search engines — encryption of transport, not necessarily client‑side query encryption
Many sources list privacy‑focused engines (DuckDuckGo, Startpage, Qwant, Searx, MetaGer, Mojeek, Brave Search) as “encrypting” searches or using HTTPS and not storing personal data, but those descriptions repeatedly refer to encrypted connections or non‑logging policies rather than explicit client‑side query encryption [3][4][5][6]. For example, Startpage is described as providing encrypted results from Google and not storing personal information; Qwant “automatically encrypts your queries” is phrased in one review but without technical detail that it uses client‑side keys before transmission [3][4]. The available reporting does not document these engines performing the same short‑lived, local key encryption Search Encrypt claims [3][4].
4. How to read vendor claims and gaps in public reporting
The supplied sources mix direct vendor FAQs and lightweight reviews or aggregator lists that often repeat vendors’ marketing lines [1][2][10]. Vendor FAQ/review parity strengthens plausibility for Search Encrypt’s claim, but the materials lack independent technical analysis, protocol specifications, or third‑party audits showing exactly what is encrypted, which keys are used, and who can decrypt queries [2][1][7]. Available sources do not mention independent cryptographic audits or server‑side details for Search Encrypt or confirm whether other engines perform equivalent client‑side payload encryption [2][1].
5. Practical implications for users and adversaries
If a search engine truly encrypts query text client‑side with a key unavailable to network observers, that protects against local attackers and network surveillance beyond what TLS alone provides; it can also prevent readable queries from being stored in plain text in browser history [2][1]. But the documents provided do not show whether Search Encrypt’s partner search backends ever see plaintext, how sponsored results are fetched, or whether server operators or search partners can access decrypted queries — important operational questions not found in current reporting [2][1].
6. Bottom line and recommended due diligence
Based on the supplied reporting, Search Encrypt explicitly advertises client‑side encryption of queries with a short‑lived key; other popular privacy engines in these sources are described as encrypting transport and minimizing logging, but not as performing client‑side query encryption in the same explicit way [1][2][3][4]. Users seeking stronger guarantees should look for published technical documentation or independent audits (not present in these results) and ask vendors whether search partners or servers ever see plaintext — available sources do not mention such audits or third‑party verification for these claims [2][1].