Note: This story is based on an investigation by @dotslashtx, a well-known cybersecurity researcher. He has posted elaborate evidence here, here and here.
The Indian Web Browser Development Challenge was launched under the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative to foster innovation and digital self-reliance. While Zoho’s Ulaa browser emerged as the winner, the second runner-up, Ping Browser, has sparked controversy for allegedly being a rebranded version of Brave Browser—a claim backed by detailed investigations.
Ping Browser’s Claimed Features
Ping Browser marketed itself as an enterprise-focused browser with advanced security features like Data Loss Prevention (DLP), enterprise-grade compliance, and enhanced privacy. It claimed to remove Google’s ad-tracking elements while supporting Chrome extensions. Additionally, it positioned itself as a standalone browser offering customization and user control without charging for privacy features12.
Investigating Ping Browser
Upon closer scrutiny by his team, Ping Browser was found to be a fork of Brave Browser, with minimal cosmetic changes:
- Identical Codebase: The underlying code of Ping Browser was nearly identical to Brave’s open-source repository.
- Commit History: A review of Ping’s GitHub repository revealed only 319 commits, mostly syncing with Brave’s core updates or making superficial modifications.
- Installer Analysis: The installer files included references to “brave.exe,” further confirming its origins.
Brave Browser Overview
Brave is an open-source browser built on Chromium, offering unparalleled privacy features such as tracker blocking, ad blocking, and fingerprinting prevention. It also includes advanced tools like VPN integration and privacy-focused search engines. Brave’s commitment to transparency and privacy has made it a popular choice among users seeking alternatives to mainstream browsers like Chrome.
The Funding Controversy
Despite its lack of originality, Ping Browser received Rs 75 lakh in funding from the Indian government. This raised questions about the evaluation process for the competition and whether sufficient due diligence was conducted. Critics argue that rewarding a white-labeled product undermines the spirit of fostering genuine innovation.
Conclusion
The Ping Browser controversy highlights the importance of rigorous evaluation in government-backed initiatives. While fostering indigenous technology is crucial for digital sovereignty, rewarding rebranded solutions risks wasting resources and stifling true innovation. Moving forward, stricter scrutiny and transparency are essential to ensure such competitions achieve their intended goals.
Summary
Ping Browser claimed to be an innovative enterprise browser but was revealed to be a rebranded version of Brave. Despite this, it won Rs 75 lakh in funding at the Indian Web Browser Development Challenge. The controversy underscores the need for stricter evaluation processes in government-backed initiatives to promote genuine innovation over white-labeling practices.
