Has DuckDuckGo published a full independent privacy audit for its core search engine?

1. What "full independent privacy audit" means in this context

A full independent privacy audit would typically be a third-party assessment that examines product architecture, telemetry, data flows, storage practices, and real-world behavior of the service end-to-end, and then publishes a detailed report of findings and remediations; DuckDuckGo has published a security audit for its VPN and operational transparency under regulatory regimes, but the materials available do not equal a published, exhaustive third‑party audit of the core search engine’s entire privacy posture ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What DuckDuckGo has publicly published that’s relevant

DuckDuckGo maintains a privacy policy describing its design choices and has published Content Security Policy (CSP) reporting practices and DSA transparency reports that assert product architecture limits tracking and that CSP reports contain no personal data ^{[4] [5] [2]}. DuckDuckGo also publicly posted the results of a November/October 2024 external security audit of its VPN infrastructure done by Securitum, which the company says found no critical vulnerabilities ^[1].

3. What independent research and reporting say about gaps

Independent commentators and privacy researchers—cited in critical pieces—have argued DuckDuckGo never underwent a formal privacy audit that thoroughly verified all of its search-engine privacy claims, and some security analyses alleged exceptions and implementation choices (notably a reported Microsoft “tracking exception”) that have prompted criticism and calls for a full audit ^{[3] [6]}. At the same time, other independent studies cited in aggregate analyses praise DuckDuckGo’s architectural advantages at the network and search layers compared to mainstream alternatives, while noting limits imposed by browser architectures ^[7].

4. Where the evidence is explicit and where reporting extrapolates

The explicit, verifiable documentation available from DuckDuckGo includes policy pages, CSP details, DSA transparency reporting, and a VPN security audit report ^{[4] [5] [2] [1]}. Claims that DuckDuckGo “never” underwent any independent checks sometimes rest on the distinction between a marketing‑claim verification (e.g., regulator or complaint investigations) and a deep, independent technical privacy audit of the search product itself; several sources make that distinction and state the latter has not been produced publicly ^[3].

5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas to note

DuckDuckGo’s own materials frame the company as privacy-first and publish targeted security reviews (VPN) and regulatory transparency reports ^{[1] [2] [4]}; privacy critics emphasize perceived exceptions and lack of an exhaustive search‑engine audit ^{[3] [6]}. Some third‑party overviews and guides cite independent academic work that finds measurable privacy benefits to DuckDuckGo’s architecture (Princeton, Norwegian Consumer Council, MIT mentions summarized in a guide), suggesting the picture is mixed and context‑dependent ^[7]. The critics’ agenda centers on demanding stronger verification and accountability, while DuckDuckGo’s agenda is to demonstrate reasonable transparency without necessarily commissioning a single monolithic audit of every product component ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

Based on the documents and reporting provided, DuckDuckGo has not publicly released a comprehensive, independent privacy audit that covers its core search engine end‑to‑end; it has published related audits (VPN) and transparency resources, and independent analyses both praise and criticize aspects of its privacy posture, but a single, full third‑party privacy audit of the search engine has not been produced in the sources reviewed ^{[1] [5] [2] [3]}. If an undisclosed or proprietary audit exists, that fact is not reflected in the available reporting and therefore cannot be confirmed here.