HAR Sanitizer vs Log Scrubber
Choose the right redaction workflow for browser network captures, application logs, headers, cookies, and incident snippets.
Use this comparison before sharing evidence in an issue, ticket, vendor portal, or chat thread.
Decision factors
| Factor | Byteflow | Other option | Practical note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input shape | HAR Sanitizer parses browser capture structure and redacts sensitive network fields defensively. | Log Scrubber scans text for common secrets, PII patterns, tokens, and identifiers. | Use the parser that understands your evidence format. |
| Redaction scope | HAR workflows can target headers, cookies, query strings, request bodies, and response bodies. | Log workflows can target bearer tokens, keys, emails, IPs, paths, and repeated secret-like strings. | Structured captures and free text fail in different ways. |
| Review step | Export only after comparing sanitized output and confirming that URLs and bodies are safe to share. | Diff scrubbed logs against the original so expected context remains while secrets are removed. | Automated redaction is a first pass, not a legal or security approval. |
| Privacy | Use the Trust Center, tool trust labels, and sample inputs to verify whether sensitive data stays in the browser. | Review each alternative's runtime behavior, storage policy, analytics, and deployment owner before using production data. | No comparison page should be treated as permission to paste secrets without verification. |
| Local execution | Prefer browser-local tools for parsing, formatting, encoding, hashing, redaction, and snippet generation when a network call is unnecessary. | Some hosted tools may proxy, store, or execute work on a server even when the UI feels instant. | Use DevTools Network with sample data when the processing boundary matters. |
| Offline use | Use installable PWA flows and cached tool shells for workflows that should remain available without a live connection. | Many single-purpose online tools require a fresh network request for the page, scripts, or processing endpoint. | Offline availability still depends on the route and assets having been cached first. |
| Open source | Review the public repository, issues, and implementation when a workflow needs inspectable behavior. | Closed or opaque tools require more vendor trust because runtime and storage behavior may not be independently reviewable. | Open source does not replace verification, but it makes claims easier to audit. |
| Workflow composition | Combine focused tools, related links, and Pipeline Builder when a task needs repeatable multi-step handling. | Recipe workbenches or specialized sites may be faster when their composition model already matches the task. | Choose the model your team can document and repeat with the least ambiguity. |
| Platform coverage | Run the web app in modern desktop and mobile browsers, with installable app behavior where supported. | Native apps, extensions, CLI tools, and hosted sites can cover different device or automation needs. | Check the target platform before standardizing a team workflow. |
| Pricing | Use the public site and source without an account for the comparison workflows described here. | Some alternatives may add paid tiers, account requirements, usage limits, or hosted-team features. | Verify current pricing and limits before making a procurement decision. |
Use HAR Sanitizer for browser evidence
Choose the HAR workflow when the source is a browser export or network troubleshooting capture with request and response metadata.
Use Log Scrubber for text evidence
Choose the log workflow when the source is application output, shell logs, stack traces, CI logs, or pasted incident notes.
Tools in this workflow
Open the focused tools directly. These links use the same registry data as search and sitemap generation.
HAR Viewer / Sanitizer
Inspect browser HAR exports locally and redact headers, cookies, query strings, bodies, and response content before sharing.
Log Scrubber
Redact secrets, tokens, emails, IP addresses, and credentials from logs locally before sharing.
Local Log Parser
Parse and analyze logs locally. Supports JSON Lines, plain text, and common log formats.
Text Diff Checker
Compare two pieces of text side-by-side. Highlights additions, deletions, and modifications instantly.
Trust check
HAR files and logs commonly contain credentials, cookies, account IDs, full URLs, and private request or response bodies. Keep sanitization local and review before export.
Privacy and Trust CenterFAQ
Can I sanitize a HAR file with a plain text scrubber?
You can catch some patterns, but a HAR-aware sanitizer is safer because it understands headers, cookies, URLs, and body fields.
Is sanitized output automatically safe to post publicly?
No. Review the result, check domain-specific identifiers, and share the smallest useful excerpt.