How does DuckDuckGo’s Fireproofing compare to other browsers’ site‑exemption features in handling third‑party trackers and first‑party cookies?
Executive summary
DuckDuckGo’s Fireproofing is an opt‑in, per‑site exemption that preserves first‑party cookies and storage for sites the user chooses while the Fire Button purges other on‑device data [1]. That design contrasts with the more granular permission and exception systems in mainstream browsers, but public reporting and the provided sources leave gaps about exact parity with all competitor features and enforcement details [2] [3].
1. What Fireproofing actually does in practice
When a site is “fireproofed” in DuckDuckGo, the browser intentionally keeps that site’s first‑party cookies and local storage so users remain signed in and preserve site state, while the Fire Button will otherwise erase cookies, caches, tabs, history and granted permissions for non‑fireproofed sites [1]. DuckDuckGo’s documentation and reviews emphasize that fireproofing is narrowly scoped to retain first‑party session data for usability, and DuckDuckGo continues to apply its broader tracker protections such as third‑party tracker blocking, fingerprinting protections and other mitigations across the browser [1] [4] [2].
2. How Fireproofing treats third‑party trackers and first‑party cookies
DuckDuckGo’s own materials make a clear distinction: fireproofing preserves first‑party cookies/storage for the selected site, while the browser’s other protections aim to block or mitigate third‑party trackers and tracker loading across sites [1] [4]. Independent guides and reviews underline that DuckDuckGo blocks many third‑party trackers by default and that first‑party trackers are harder to block because they are served by the site itself—hence preserving first‑party cookies is a deliberate tradeoff for usability [3] [2]. One third‑party summary claims fireproofing “will remove all the third party trackers” on a fireproofed site, but that wording is inconsistent with DuckDuckGo’s own docs which separate preserved first‑party data from its general third‑party tracker protections [5] [1].
3. How this compares to major browsers’ site‑exemption features
Mainstream browsers typically expose cookie, site‑storage and permission exceptions and sometimes allow session‑only cookies or per‑site cookie blocking, so users can tailor behavior per domain; however, the specific interaction between a single‑click global purge (DuckDuckGo’s Fire Button) plus per‑site “preserve” is a different product model focused on one‑tap privacy hygiene rather than granular policy rules [2]. The sources provided do not include a comprehensive side‑by‑side of Chrome, Firefox, or Safari exception semantics, so drawing definitive technical parity claims would exceed the reporting; the available reporting does note that DuckDuckGo bundles additional protections (like CNAME cloaking protection, Link Tracking and Global Privacy Control) that many browsers don’t enable by default [1] [4].
4. Tradeoffs and user expectations
The practical tradeoff is explicit: fireproofing favors usability (staying logged in) at the cost of preserving first‑party identifiers on that domain, while relying on DuckDuckGo’s suite to continue blocking third‑party tracking vectors elsewhere [1] [4]. Security and privacy reviewers appreciate non‑optional tracker blocking and Fire Button convenience, but warn that first‑party trackers embedded by sites remain harder to neutralize and that users should understand exceptions preserve that site’s local identifiers [2] [3]. Confusion in secondary reporting about whether third‑party trackers are removed on fireproofed sites [5] highlights a common user misconception: “exemption” in DuckDuckGo is specifically about retaining first‑party storage for usability, not an across‑the‑board disabling of tracker protections documented elsewhere in DuckDuckGo’s feature set [1] [4].
5. Bottom line and reporting limits
For users prioritizing one‑tap clearing with the option to keep a few trusted logins, DuckDuckGo’s Fireproofing is a clean, integrated solution that preserves first‑party cookies while continuing to deploy other third‑party tracker protections by default [1] [4]. For readers seeking a technical, side‑by‑side enforcement comparison with Chrome/Firefox/Safari site exception semantics—for example, how cookie scope, SameSite handling, or storage APIs are treated under each browser’s “allow” or “session only” rules—those specifics are not provided in the supplied sources and would require direct vendor documentation or audits to resolve (limitation: not covered in provided reporting).