Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has DuckDuckGo's mobile app encryption been independently audited?
Executive summary
Available sources document that DuckDuckGo’s “Smarter Encryption” feature (used in its mobile app and browser extensions) is a company‑maintained list that forces HTTPS when available and covers millions of sites (DuckDuckGo and reporting cite ~12 million entries and ~81% traffic coverage) [1] [2] [3]. Sources also show DuckDuckGo has published at least one external security audit tied to its VPN/browser work, with findings and an auditor named [4]. Available sources do not explicitly state that DuckDuckGo’s mobile app encryption (Smarter Encryption) itself underwent a standalone independent cryptographic audit; that specific claim is not found in current reporting.
1. What DuckDuckGo says the feature does — Smarter Encryption explained
DuckDuckGo describes Smarter Encryption as a technology in its mobile Privacy Browser and desktop extensions that maintains a large, auto‑populated list of sites that support HTTPS and proactively upgrades or routes requests to secure (https://) versions when possible, reducing exposure to eavesdroppers like ISPs or Wi‑Fi snoopers [1] [5]. Reporting from WIRED and Search Engine Journal summarizes the same design: the feature uses automated crawling to build a whitelist (rather than manual preload lists used elsewhere) and already ran on roughly 12 million sites at launch, which the outlets contrast with much smaller lists used by other tools [3] [6].
2. Numbers and scope — how big is the encryption list?
Independent coverage cited in the reporting quantifies the Smarter Encryption data set at around 12 million entries and estimates it covers roughly 81% of web traffic—figures repeated in privacy‑focused writeups that compare DuckDuckGo’s list to older approaches such as EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere and Chromium’s HSTS preload [2] [3]. DuckDuckGo’s help pages also emphasize the list’s size and that it can’t be fully stored on devices, which is why the app fetches updates [1].
3. Audits and third‑party review — what sources actually document
DuckDuckGo has published material about external security audits in related areas. For example, DuckDuckGo posted a VPN/browser security audit that named the auditor (Securitum) and described findings about Keychain access settings and other issues, expressing thanks to the auditor for “meticulous and dedicated efforts” [4]. Industry and blog coverage discuss the company inviting scrutiny from privacy advocates and undergoing external security audits more generally [7]. None of the provided sources, however, explicitly state that the Smarter Encryption mechanism or the mobile app’s encryption routing was the subject of a distinct, standalone independent cryptographic or security audit that examined its whitelist logic, update mechanisms, or possible downgrade/redirect attack surfaces (available sources do not mention a Smarter Encryption–specific audit) [1] [3] [6].
4. Why that distinction matters — attack surface and verification needs
Smarter Encryption’s model—maintaining and updating a large whitelist and rewriting http:// links to https:// for sites known to support TLS—raises architectural questions that are best addressed by granular, third‑party review: for example, how the list is built and validated, how updates are authenticated on devices, and whether rewriting can introduce edge cases or expose initial requests [3] [6]. Reporting highlights that many encryption implementations on the web are uneven, which is why DuckDuckGo’s crawling approach was technically challenging [3]. The available audit material tied to other DuckDuckGo products proves the company does submit software to external review in some contexts, but sources don’t show a published technical audit focused on Smarter Encryption itself (available sources do not mention a Smarter Encryption‑targeted audit) [4].
5. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Privacy writers (SpreadPrivacy and others) and publications like WIRED present Smarter Encryption positively—emphasizing larger coverage and automatic upgrades [2] [3]. Company help pages and marketing likewise stress forced HTTPS and protection from passive eavesdroppers [1] [8]. Critical or skeptical perspectives in the provided set are limited: Security.org and other explainers note past audit findings and third‑party relationships that sparked scrutiny (for example, a 2022 audit mentioning a syndication agreement with Microsoft), which indicates independent reviewers do examine DuckDuckGo’s practices and that such reviews can reveal tradeoffs or complexities [9]. The implicit agenda in DuckDuckGo’s documentation and marketing is to position the app as a privacy superior to mainstream browsers—an advantage that benefits its brand and user growth claims [8] [10].
6. Bottom line for readers seeking assurance
If your question is strictly “Has DuckDuckGo’s mobile app encryption (Smarter Encryption) been independently audited?” the documents and articles provided show DuckDuckGo undergoes external audits for some products (VPN/browser security) and that it publicly documents security findings [4] [7], but they do not include a clear, published independent audit that focuses specifically on Smarter Encryption or the mobile app’s HTTPS‑upgrading mechanism (available sources do not mention a Smarter Encryption‑specific independent audit). Readers who want verification should look for a named audit report that explicitly scopes Smarter Encryption (or the mobile app’s network‑request and update handling) and names the auditor; that specific artifact is not present in the supplied sources (available sources do not mention such a report) [1] [4].