The antidetect browser built for real work

How we build, and what we refuse to claim

Dual Login is built by a small team around one unfashionable decision: the fingerprint belongs in the browser engine, not in injected JavaScript. Injection is dramatically cheaper to build and ship -- it is why most of this market uses it -- and it fails in a predictable place. Overridden functions do not look native under inspection, and web workers and cross-origin frames frequently run outside the injected context and report the machine underneath. Maintaining a patched Chromium is slower, harder and means rebuilding on every upstream release. It is also the only version of this product we thought was worth selling.

The same instinct decided where profiles run. Everything here executes on your own machine: your browsers, your data directories, your cookies on your disk. That costs you RAM -- about five concurrent profiles per 4 GB -- and it is the honest price of the arrangement. What it buys is that your sessions are not sitting on our infrastructure waiting for our outage, our policy change, or our breach. Syncing exists for the real problem of moving a login to a second computer, and it is opt-in per profile, because that is the one moment profile data leaves hardware you control.

What we will not tell you

That your accounts will be safe. We do not know, and neither does anyone else selling you this category. Platforms weigh IP reputation, account age, payment instruments, phone numbers, content and behaviour alongside device identity, and most of those are outside any browser’s reach. We handle the device layer, we handle it properly, and we say so in those words rather than in a guarantee we would have to quietly withdraw the first time somebody held us to it. Our comparison pages name the cases where a competitor is the better answer for the same reason.

How to hold us to this

None of the above is worth much as a statement of intent, so the useful version is what you can check. The community is public and criticism stays up. The comparison pages name where competitors win. The policies carry plain-English summaries that point back at the clause they came from. If any of those stops being true, it will be visible without asking us.

Where we are

Keyback Systems Ltd., in Dhaka, with Bangladesh as the governing jurisdiction -- on the contact page rather than only in a footer, because a customer is entitled to know who they are contracting with before they subscribe rather than after. The team is small, which is visible in both directions: releases are frequent and the person answering your email is usually the person who can change the thing you are asking about.

Why the free plan has no clock

Every competitor’s trial expires, usually in seven or fourteen days, and the arithmetic is not accidental: the only test that matters in this category is whether sessions survive a week of restarts and ordinary use, and a countdown ensures the evaluation ends around the time the answer would arrive. Ten profiles with no card and no clock costs us the customers who were never going to buy. It also means the people who do buy have already run the test, which is a better foundation for a business than a conversion rate.

What we do not want

A tool that makes accounts harder to link is genuinely more attractive to somebody committing fraud, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. So the rules name real victims -- fraud, stolen credentials, phishing, malware -- rather than listing sites you may not visit, and enforcement is graduated with the finding shared, because an accusation you cannot see is one you cannot answer. We would rather lose that business than build the reputation that comes with keeping it.

The rest follows from the same place. We collect as little as the service runs on, because data never collected cannot leak. Card numbers never reach our servers. The free plan is ten profiles with no card and no countdown, because a trial that expires before you have tested the only thing that matters -- whether sessions hold over a week -- is a trial designed to prevent evaluation rather than enable it.