Many people often encounter terms like "SSH", "SSH Tunnel", and "SSH Proxy" when managing multiple accounts, engaging in cross-border business, e-commerce, or automation scenarios. Well-known proxy tools or automation tools typically include such settings to enhance the security of personal information and network connections. As a result, some people online wonder: if anti-detection browsers help manage multiple accounts without being tracked by website browser fingerprints, wouldn't combining them with SSH make it even more secure?

In fact, this idea is correct. After all, many anti-detection browsers still offer SSH proxy-related features—for example, BitFingerprint Browser includes such options. Some users want to integrate anti-detection browsers with SSH proxies for various reasons: having seen SSH-related instructions when using proxies, encountered SSH options in certain tools, desiring a more secure/independent network exit, or being unsatisfied with SOCKS5/HTTPS and wanting to try a more professional tunneling method. Today, we will provide a detailed and comprehensive guide on whether anti-detection browsers support SSH.

What is SSH? Why was it used before?

SSH (Secure Shell) is a secure encrypted tunneling protocol most commonly used for logging into remote servers (Linux/VPS), transferring files, executing server commands, establishing port forwarding, and more. Additionally, because SSH natively supports tunneling—encrypting local traffic and forwarding it to a remote server—some early anti-detection browsers/multi-account tools utilized SSH as a transmission method for browser proxies.

Many users at that time chose SSH primarily for enhanced privacy protection, accessing corporate intranet servers, or avoiding network interference via SSH tunnels. As a result, SSH was more prevalent back then. However, this does not mean SSH is obsolete today; it has simply been replaced by more convenient alternatives.

Do anti-detection browsers still support SSH?

In comparison, SSH is no longer the mainstream user proxy method in most modern anti-detection browsers. Currently, the majority of tools in the industry use SOCKS5/HTTP(S) protocols, which are better matched with browsers in terms of performance, speed, and compatibility, and are easier to manage in batches and automate. However, different anti-detection tools have different technical architectures, so there is no unified standard for SSH support. Some products still retain SSH options, while others opt for SOCKS5/HTTPS instead. Of course, it would be ideal if all tools supported SSH—that’s just my personal opinion.

Why do many anti-detection browsers support multiple protocols, but SSH is listed last?

1. SSH is not designed for browser traffic

SSH is inherently intended for server management, not as a browser proxy protocol. To implement browser proxying via SSH, you need to establish an SSH tunnel, configure local port forwarding, and then bind it to the browser—this process is complex and cumbersome, especially for beginners.

2. SOCKS5/HTTPS are more stable, faster, and compatible

These proxy protocols are particularly suitable for multi-account operations, e-commerce management, social media accounts, automation tasks, and large-scale proxy pools, as they are optimized for browsers and HTTP/TCP traffic.

3. Easier management (especially in multi-account scenarios)

Most proxy lines provided by vendors support SOCKS5/HTTP/HTTPS, so many tools prefer these protocols for seamless integration.

However, SSH is still highly useful in certain scenarios:

1. Corporate internal system access

Many company internal systems can only be accessed via SSH tunnels, which is very common.

2. High-security encryption communication scenarios

SSH offers much higher encryption strength than regular proxies, making it a preferred choice for users with extremely high security requirements.

3. Regions with severe internet restrictions

In some regions, proxy protocols are heavily restricted, but SSH is often not recognized as a proxy, making it an effective way to bypass limitations.

4. Technical users (familiar with servers and Linux)

For developers, server administrators, and automation users, SSH is more flexible and secure.

5. Need for Port Forwarding

For example, accessing environments that require an internal jump server—SSH is the better choice in such cases.

Final Summary:

In conclusion, whether an anti-detection browser supports SSH depends on the technical route chosen by the vendor. The absence of SSH support in some tools does not mean SSH is ineffective; vendors may add SSH-related proxy settings in the future. Overall, the idea of using SSH with anti-detection browsers is completely valid.