Leaderboard

The browser might already had the chance to connect to the servers and verify against the original china files, if it suggests you to "download the latest version".

The error we both see with @Dixeldiffers with yours, if are to assume you get it when you simply swap the files, though it would still not explain our error.

as promised .heic is brought to windows xp closing the gap for xp having a very new image encoder and decoder (and nothing using any other modules, engines or weird operating system dependencys) the resulting image is even better then the one on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format reason behind this i only choosed the best options, better internal code, better decisions, and disregarded code that decreases image quality ----- APP "WinXP HEVC/HEIF/H265 Image En/Decoder explained" The Encoder: Encode By Filename: allow you to select a file this heic encoder supports : .jpg, .png, .tif and .y4m (raw YUV format) the encoder make a .heic file from the choosen file Encoder By Folder: this read "Encode By Folder Searched Format Ending" if you have choosen jpg then it will search all .jpg files in the choosen folder actual chooses: png, jpg, tif or y4m if the entry was jpg then the encoder will encode all .jpg files in that folder to .heic this by folder was made so you can encode many files instead of always 1 file, while going to drink some coffee Encoder Complexity: "placebo" is the best setting here i actually dont see any reason to choose a different setting that actually only results in less image quality (best: 1: placebo, 2: veryslow, 3: slower, 4: slow, 5: medium, 6: fast , 7: faster, 8: veryfast, 9: superfast, 10 ultrafast) why we should we set a setting that decreases image quality? (basicly i not even wanted to have this box) (1 word about this, placebo use the best compressions tricks therefore the time is longer(more code = more time), the others try to speed up this (and leave out some functions, tricks, try to end the encoder before it really was done), it might not always increase the image - but you can be certain you got the best option (and the highest amount of pixels possible) also it can happen that that your image might not challenged the encoder for its maximum, then a "faster" setting dont have that much difference, still it can result in less amount of pixels, with placebo you are certain to get the maximum it really raise questions to use the others, you can make a big jpg file and you may dont see the image difference that much - but why ? are we making a jpg or are we making a high efficienty image encoder ?) Hardware Acceleration: makes use of hardware registers such as MMX, SSE and AVX this speed up encoding time a lot since the encoder is very complex image encoding can take time hardware acceleration makes encoding a lot faster notice: depending on your cpu power since the encoder is complex can take some time (if so keep a look "Encoded Image Files") (MMX, SSE and AVX are speed hardware registers they are between 64 and 512 bits wide, depending what one is available (yes in 32 bit)) Quality: controls the filesize of your .heic file, the lower this number the smaller your .heic file lossless: that option is not very useful as the real question is how well the pixels was preserved making a compression (we actually dont make a raw format - we make a compression) so better set this option to 0 (it dont make a real compression) Tuner: this increases the image quality even further good settings are psnr and ssim - the other settings only decrease image quality the tuner increased the amount of pixels, as said before its a extra function to improve more pixels more code = more time - this makes a good example - if you leave out many of good possible tricks you might end up in a less fancy picture ----- The Decoder: you have to choose a output image format for your .heic file (we have png, tif, jpg, and y4m) png compression level (0-9): png compression level -1 actually represents png compression 6 i actually dont see a well reason to have -1 as option, since -1 just represent compression 6 (you can try this out by looking at the filesize of the resulting .png file (try -1 and 6 they are the same) -1 actually is called png_default_compression what then is defined as 6 0 means no compression (this is good to make a compare how well your .heic file was preserved) increasing values make higher compressions losing more pixels (again 6 is equal to -1) 0 is the best png compression regarding pixels going from 0 to higher numbers decreasing image quality (higher numbers create smaller file sizes) (and make a compromise about pixels and compression) png is said to be lossless, but i only know for certain if option 0 is selected that it is a lossless copy. (what makes a 1:1 copy of the .heic file as it exits) jpg compression (1-100): nothing much to say here the higher this value the better the resulting jpg image notice higher values also cause bigger filze sizes 90 seems to be a good choice Decode By Filename: this button actually reads out "Decode In Format" why ? because if you select a .heic file the decoder has to know the decompression format valid formats are: png , jpg , y4m, tif Decode By Folder: reads out "Decode In Format" then the selected folder is searched for .heic files and then the decoder decodes all .heic files into the image format you set in "Decode In Format" Multi-pass: this makes a second image and compare the result with the first image - according to information this also improves image quality a bit (the h.266 says for example 1-3 % in average, then something about maybe sometimes more) Create A Subfolder: this allow you to put a folder where the WinXP HEIC en/decoder put its files it trys to create that folder, but you also can create that folder yourself this also avoid the name problem when controlling with "By Folder" ------ rumors say .heic is the best image encoder at the moment as we know .heic passes jpg, jpg2000 and jxr (jpeg xr) what we can see in the wikipedia site for heic maybe .heic also other jpg formats like the jxs format (what is rather speed orientated then quality orientated) there are some (jpeg xt, jpeg xs, jpeg ls, jpeg xe, jpeg xl) (https://jpeg.org) if someone wants to makes the compares the h.266 by frauenhofer or jxl would be candidates to try or even the others ... i actually never seen a h.266 frauenhofer image yet (updated the links): https://www.file-upload.net/download-15405155/WinXP_HEIC.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/g9t94vi3dr4gycl/WinXP_HEIC.zip/file

Interesting, but still don't understand what does it have to do with HEVC mentioned in the title (H265). Will Nero understand this format?

I didn't mix anything. But the issue is interesting since mixing would also trigger the warning. So, does it appear only when you're online?

So perhaps some telemetry isn't completely removed in 2044, and it triggers the "trojan warning" reporter. Do you all get the Trojan warning while being online or offline? Perhaps the browser connects to China to verify the integrity, and "sees" it's not as it should be? Interesting. This would explain no warning on the original version.

Thanks for yet another confirmation! Now both executables scan browser files and tell something's fishy with the rest of the files, interesting. So this is not "only Vista" related, like someone tried to imply earlier, I see you're on XP Pro x86.

Moved to 'Web Browsers' where it should really be.

Strictly from Speedometer 2.1 with only one run each -- 2044 scored 75.5... 1030 scored 75.2... 2036 scored 74.8... This is on XP x64 on a fairly old i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM. So if we really want to "squeeze the turnip" for every last tiny drop of performance, seems 2044 is the "fastest". But those numbers are so close that we really are technically "within margin of error". I'll try a few other benchmark just for curiosity.

I figured that's why I was asking my question last night. Then I realized it must be a bug! I'm not sure how to fix it. Edit: I can repro this behavior on my other machine. Edit 1: I also noticed some icons in the overflow menu are blank but when I drag them out into the systray the icon reappears. It's inconsistent but happening on two machines. Restarting the program fixes the blank icon. @Tihiy I fixed it but it definitely seems like something in the registry was messed up. I went here: I shut off Network, Power, and Volume. Then I restarted explorer and switched them back on. Now it works: This process worked on both machines.

I don't remember when I said I don't use 360Chrome, you got me confused with someone else, nothing is hijacked since the Trojan message comes from the browser itself. Though, it's a bit different on XP and Vista. Did you have the chance to compare 1030 with 2044 with enough real life usage? Is it faster? Maybe not worth it? Or maybe worth to search for the cause?

I don't use the ex-kernel, I only use it sometimes - locally, and it can't affect this browser. My Vista x64 is original, but I had to update it to run modern games from 2021, yes, I hate this fact, I don't like updates. I'm now at build 6003. I'm just curious, nothing more, but thanks.

Interesting, it suggests you to download the latest version, mine doesn't, look. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185049-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1352044-rebuild-1/?do=findComment&comment=1254004

It is

Why the thread Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations is located in the forum Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes, does not need to be explained any further and is crystal clear . Same for userscripts to inject further functionality into old, legacy browsers. But in terms of the thread Monkey Scripts, the creator @NotHereToPlayGames should first be asked whether he agrees to a relocation. It is not acceptable that someone here simply orders such a relocation. That is rather a no-go.

And here's @UCyborg's polyfill for structuredClone (Chrome before v.98; K-Meleon, New Moon 27, FF 45; not needed on UXP-based browsers or Serpent 55) // ==UserScript== // @name Inject structuredClone() Polyfill [98] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (typeof self.structuredClone !== "function") { self.structuredClone = function (value) { if (Array.isArray(value)) { const count = value.length; let arr = new Array(count); for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { arr = self.structuredClone(value); } return arr; } else if (typeof value === "object") { let obj = {}; for (const prop in value) { obj[prop] = self.structuredClone(value[prop]); } return obj; } else { return value; } } } This will fail if an array or object property references itself, but works well in most cases.

ChrisPC Screen Recorder

First, I don't see a screenshot. Second, "the parameter is incorrect", look the link below. Third, you would need to run InfVerif.exe from the command line. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/inf-validation-errors-and-warnings

The description fits a lot of websites as of now, btw, another typo.

Is that here another (360)Chrome thread? I do not hope so.

References structuredClone (Chrome 98+). There's polyfill for it in one of 360Chrome threads. Oh, it's actually here: It's install and forget if you leave it in easy mode. From the quick glance, I guess new versions understand newer syntax for writing filters. And I guess extension doesn't get updates for some filters anymore. I don't know, for few sites I visit, I still don't see any annoyance, even when left at default settings. Maybe lots is still blocked by filters containing old known domains hosting ads. I used to use both NoScript and uBO (easy mode), that was before I even bothered with uBO documentation and before uBO had the concept of temporary rules. I don't think I'm ever using more than 1 extension for this sort of thing again. Micro-managing with one extension gets tiring as it is. Polishing my whitelist in recent times, I'm settling on the medium mode, similar to NoScript way, white-list JavaScript from main site and only selected domains the site fetches additional JavaScript. My reason is mostly just why run code that does nothing for me to be able to read the site. Lots of sites I don't visit regularly, but nice to have it ready. I don't think old NoScript has let you say something like "only allow google.com for this and that site", but it has some other bells and whistles, which I don't think I need...security related...you know I don't run an anti-virus either since I believe the probability of encountering an actual security issue is so low that it's not worth the bother. No updates generally (not for uBO specifically) can sometimes be refreshing, I'm personally really tired of the constant update cycle when it comes to software in general, but I work a job where they're part of it, I would've quit a long time ago if it wasn't for the money... On the other hand, an odd browser only used by a minority...depending on what you expect out if it, probability of encountering issues due to extensions not being updated is higher. I have about 28 extensions enabled, about 15 of them are used regularly, of the total 28, I have modified 9 of them, if I counted right, 2 of those 9 extensions only had cosmetic mods applied, but the rest had some kind of usability issue.

A tab crash for latest compil, under xp 64. Hopefully we get a x64 version next time.

Should be removed since v68.

I run it with all bloat removed, incuding d3d47 and LibGL. Of course no "doctor". Didn't you read the Trojan message? It says "damaged", not "missing".

Most importantly, how would you explain I can run the original 2044 perfectly fine, with or without my starter?

I find this very difficult to believe. Appears to be Backward Reasoning. http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/backwards_reasoning.htm Can you also find a Forbes List dated September 2023 that lists XP or 7 or Vista as an Operating System to be using in 2023 ???

I know I posted this before and it got deleted. Privacy was lost in antiviruses the day cloud scanning became a thing. Discussing which antiviruses are more private because this country or that country appeals more to you is pointless. All antiviruses are data collectors unless you can turn off cloud scanning. In most antiviruses these days it's not possible to do that. If we know all of them collect data all we can do is 2 things. Either don't use any antivirus or decide which country appeals more to your privacy tastes. In my case since I live in a US territory. If I have to give some of my data I rather give it to some country far way than to participate in my own countries data monitoring. Remember covid ? In some US states, cellphones where tracked to see if people where staying at home. I don't know what's more totalitarian than that in a place of "democracy". I don't use a smartphone but if I have to give some data I rather give it to Russia. In any rate, I still think that in an antivirus thread, all antiviruses from all countries should be listed. Pros and cons of each one so that people decide for themselves . And let the politics be discussed in a separate off-topic thread about politics.

@Dixel - I really think you are "intentionally" missing the point. The Kaspersky CVE Report pertains to a Unique ID String. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That unique ID string is NOT buried inside a .dll that requires mods to remove. The .dll installed on your computer is identical to the .dll installed on my computer. My unique ID string is not the same as your unique ID string. I am not part of the Anti Kaspersky Agenda. My directives are not being blinded by that Agenda. Kaspersky did send a unique ID string and it was introduced in the fall of 2015. Kaspersky removed that unique ID string in June of 2019. Non-evasive (no modding) methods to prevent this were common knowledge in 2016. There is a setting right there in the Kaspersky GUI to disable this behavior. In Kaspersky 2016, it was in Settings -> Additional -> Network -> Inject scripts into web traffic to interact with web pages People that install with "defaults" would never see this - us here at MSFN are smarter than that, I would hope. uMatrix removes that "injection". I will verify but I have to assume that everybody's beloved uBO also removes it. I have Kasperky INSTALLED. Perhaps any and all discussions pertaining to Kaspersky should be limited to THOSE THAT HAVE IT INSTALLED? I'm done. Stick a fork in me.

I find that interesting and thought I was the only one. I have been using XP Pro 64-bit for over 10 years with no antivirus program installed. Surfed the Internet continuously and downloaded many programs and my computer has never been infected. Mainly was careful with what site to go to and used common sense. May have been lucky also. Any program from a site I was not sure of, I would upload to Jotti's Malware Scan or VirusTotal. Some years ago, I did install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Version 2.2.1.1043, and that was the last that would install on XP 64-bit and definitions stopped last year. Do you use a firewall on your XP 64-bit machine?

The EU is divided on this. So too will MSFN Members be divided. This thread should not be about the loudest squeaking wheel getting the oil. It's an international forum not tied to any specific Government Agency's "perspective". When we (any one of us) act like it is, that is where POLITICS enter the picture and we need to AVOID that. PLEASE.

Keep personal comments out of this thread.

I submit that you should also consider this perspective - if, and again a big IF, but if I find "unique ID strings" in *ALL* of the security programs of this thread, does that mean that the entire thread should be shut down? I'm not claiming that they exist. But I do know that *ALL* anti-virus programs manufacturers have been "slapped on the wrist" throughout the many decades I have used computers for whether or not their "data mining" crossed the line on Privacy Rights.

Noted. And in that thread, you wrote this -- "where I was even courteous enough to provide a very rare installer for Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, which I had previously cleaned and thus decontaminated" So are we allowing MODDED versions or not? Because Kaspersky CAN be MODDED to be "safe and secure" and NO LONGER a concern with identifier strings. That is the angle I am coming from. I have not tested yet, all I've done thus far is create 4 partitions and installed XP *three times* so I have TIME INVESTED. IF, and it's a big IF, but IF Kaspersky (after removing telemetry and Unique ID String) is lean and mean compared to AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, MalwareBytes, then WE MUST consider it as the "superior" alternative for OLD HARDWARE. Again, a big IF, but if an XP installed with Kaspersky "idles" at 5% CPU utilization and 15% RAM utilization where an XP installed with McAfee "idles" at 20% CPU utilization and 40% RAM utilization, then who in their right mind would use McAfee. Purely hypothetically percentages at this stage.

Update notification! Contrary to the system requirements published by RealDefense in their FAQ (actually Windows 7 and higher), SUPERAntiSpyware Professional has been updated to the version 10.0.1254 via automatic update and is still compatible to Windows XP. It works as it should without any problems. Here is a screenshot showing the main interface of SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X 10.0.1254 in my Windows XP partition: Cheers, AstroSkipper

SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X Edition 10.0.1250 is the version I am using now. It was the last version which comes via automatic update. When I am at my desktop computer, I will check the System Tools - System Investigator option and report here.

@Cixert! You are really helpful here. Thank you for your contributions! IObit Malware Fighter, another candidate which is already on my list. Unfortunately, I have had the same unpleasant experience as you. IObit tries to push their Advanced Systemcare product on every user. This is totally annoying. I have also noticed the increased consumption of resources. And when you uninstall software from IObit, there is always something left over. Then it's a matter of searching and manual cleaning.. On the plus side, IObit Malware Fighter is still compatible with Windows XP, for whatever that's worth. Unfortunately, in Windows XP we can't be very picky and have to consider every option, even those we would normally discard. At the moment, we still have other options, fortunately.

As you can see, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X seems to be abandoned just recently, in March of 2023. That's very regrettable, of course! But the updating of definitions still works, of course!

Hello @Cixert! I have been wondering for a long time that no one here mentions or recommends this program. So my compliments to you. I have been using SUPERAntiSpyware since 2007, starting with version 3. The last compatible version with Windows 98 and ME was 4.24.1004. Since 2011, I have been in possession of a lifetime licence and have been using it in the Professional Edition ever since. And you are absolutely right, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional has been XP-compatible for years and actually runs without problems. According to the fact that an automatic update from the version 10.0.1250 to 10.0.1252 isn't offered anymore in my system and according to their FAQ, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional doesn't seem to support Windows XP anymore. Therefore, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X Edition 10.0.1250 seems to be the last XP/Vista-compatible version. That's probably why you observed an issue under the option System Tools. In the version 10.0.1250, there is no problem with this option. Here are two screenshots of SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X 10.0.1250 showing the main interface and the working option System Tools: However, the Free Edition and Technicians Edition are supposed to be still compatible with Windows XP and Vista. Anyway! SUPERAntiSpyware has been on my list for a long time. And an article about it will come soon. But again, thanks for your recommendation! Good job! Greetings, AstroSkipper

Hello @Snowshoe! I could successfully connect to https://ms.kartkrew.org/ using IE8 with ProxHTTPSProxy (part of my package ProxHTTPSProxy's PopMenu TLS 1.3 3V3) enabled: To connect successfully, you have to edit the config.ini of ProxHTTPSProxy under the section [SSL No-Verify]: Cheers, AstroSkipper

Best regards. Back on topic! A few days ago, I had a similar problem with wget. Among other things, my self-created batch file should download a certain file from a server which leads to an error. I was able to fix the problem by adding an option to wget that disables the server certificate check against the available certificate authorities. With the option --no-check-certificate, wget was able to download the desired file again without any problems. Curl is a similar program which is able to download files from servers. It uses SSL/TLS protocols which can be controlled by different options as for example --sslv3, --tlsv1.2, --tlsv1.3, --tls-max and so on. Furthermore, curl has a lot of proxy options: --proxy [protocol://]host[:port] Use this proxy --proxy-anyauth Pick any proxy authentication method --proxy-basic Use Basic authentication on the proxy --proxy-cacert <file> CA certificate to verify peer against for proxy --proxy-capath <dir> CA directory to verify peer against for proxy --proxy-cert <cert[:passwd]> Set client certificate for proxy --proxy-cert-type <type> Client certificate type for HTTPS proxy --proxy-ciphers <list> SSL ciphers to use for proxy --proxy-crlfile <file> Set a CRL list for proxy --proxy-digest Use Digest authentication on the proxy --proxy-header <header/@file> Pass custom header(s) to proxy --proxy-insecure Do HTTPS proxy connections without verifying the proxy --proxy-key <key> Private key for HTTPS proxy --proxy-key-type <type> Private key file type for proxy --proxy-negotiate Use HTTP Negotiate (SPNEGO) authentication on the proxy --proxy-ntlm Use NTLM authentication on the proxy --proxy-pass <phrase> Pass phrase for the private key for HTTPS proxy --proxy-pinnedpubkey <hashes> FILE/HASHES public key to verify proxy with --proxy-service-name <name> SPNEGO proxy service name --proxy-ssl-allow-beast Allow security flaw for interop for HTTPS proxy --proxy-tls13-ciphers <ciphersuite list> TLS 1.3 proxy cipher suites --proxy-tlsauthtype <type> TLS authentication type for HTTPS proxy --proxy-tlspassword <string> TLS password for HTTPS proxy --proxy-tlsuser <name> TLS username for HTTPS proxy --proxy-tlsv1 Use TLSv1 for HTTPS proxy --proxy-user <user:password> Proxy user and password --proxy1.0 <host[:port]> Use HTTP/1.0 proxy on given port --proxytunnel Operate through an HTTP proxy tunnel (using CONNECT) Frankly, I don't really see the need to use curl with ProxHTTPSProxy. It should also do its job without this proxy in Windows XP. About programs with curl embedded, I can't say anything detailed. These programs would have to be specified more clearly. Maybe, @Snowshoe can explain more detailed what kind of programs he referred to, what he actually wants to achieve with these curl programs and why he needs a connection established by ProxHTTPSProxy, including the command line input or other execution commands which leads to the error. In any case, the curl option --ssl-no-revoke prevents the cert revocation check with the server to be connected. Are these the droids you're looking for? Probably not! Greetings from Germany, AstroSkipper

Thank you for Your attention and my best wishes to You. You're welcome! And dito! I love it!

Hello @Snowshoe! Here are two screenshots with the settings of my SocksCap64 installation: If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask here! Cheers, AstroSkipper

Hello members, will you please help me to remove the "non-indexed" warning from Windows Vista. Thanks everyone who helps. Wonderful and friendly forum, as I can see.

If I turn on the indexing option, the button shows up. But it's not what I wanted...

Found ! But it only suggests me to turn the indexing back on, which is obvioulsy out of the question.

Thank you, when the indexing is OFF, it doesn't allow me to click on anything that brings up this menu. No such menu. What exactly do you click on for the menu to be shown ?

I can't imagine there's no answer to this question ...

"Protecting Your Malware" by Adam Chester , Hacker and Infosec Researcher https://blog.xpnsec.com/protecting-your-malware/

Updated the prev. post with another image with now twelve videos un-muted playing at the same time , for you ! Another US IP (I think from New York) .

You can try to use "I don't care about cookies. eu " list .