Leaderboard

@roytam1 In Serpent v52.9.0 (2025-01-10) (32-bit) on website playground.ru the video player doesn’t work, giving "Player error: t.c.ChangeType is not a function" and "TypeError: Argument 1 of Document.elementFromPoint is not a finite floating-point value" also appears in the console. Link to check: https://www.playground.ru/exodus/news/byvshie_tvortsy_mass_effect_raskryli_eschyo_bolshe_detalej_o_svoej_ambitsioznoj_igre_exodus-1745326 I suppose to fix "Player error: t.c.ChangeType is not a function", it’s necessary to add support for SourceBuffer.ChangeType() method, which was added in Firefox 63. To fix "TypeError: Argument 1 of Document.elementFromPoint is not a finite floating-point value", it’s necessary to add support for MouseEvent.x and MouseEvent.y properties, which are aliases for MouseEvent.clientX and MouseEvent.clientY properties respectively, and were added in Firefox 53.

And please stop with the CAPSLOCKING. The "super clever" developer of Ungoogled simply replaced "chromium" with "ch40m1um". Is it a 2 year old kid, or what? https://bugs.ch40m1um.qjz9zk/ I'll tell more, there are all sorts of retarded replacements all over the file, like "www.9oo9H"! Google with shmoogle, and so on. You, with your rep of 3.2K, you still wanna tell me the browser will not broadcast rubbish?

To be more precise 93181864 B corresponds to 88.8652 MB ≈ 88.87 MB ≈ 88.9 MB. So, @VistaLover, @Saxon and @Dixel are definitely right. In general, rounded values are not really suitable when it comes to comparing files. It is better to take the value in bytes (B).

In April of 2022, I already recreated the cacert_Updater.exe due to false positives generated by some scanners. Read more about it here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183352-proxhttpsproxy-and-httpsproxy-in-windows-xp-for-future-use/?do=findComment&comment=1217288 Strangely, the archive in this post has not been flagged as malicious by MediaFire although it contains the same cacert_Updater.exe file.

that might be a good point to point out that this false flagging is done quite often, what was not case in the past because at some point it did not have to be a virus, trojan horse, keylogger it has to be "potentional unwanted software, malware" - what this is they defined but rather going into a direction where software gets marked what is not on the want list after that they just flagged unwanted programms as virus, also coming over the anti virus software i could not even run the heic en/decoder in a win10 vmware test machine because all it said is that this executable is a virus, this was the case with many other 100 % virus free software i compiled up - other such as the one core api are also flagged as virus - even tho its open source its a monopoly

I just saw a description of the Gamaredon trojan flagged by Kaspersky in cacert_Updater.exe: "Gamaredon ... is a Russian, state-sponsored cyber-espionage hacking group with cybersecurity researchers linking them to the FSB (Russian Federal Security Service)" https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/gamaredon-hackers-start-stealing-data-30-minutes-after-a-breach/ Russian Kaspersky is very unlikely to flag real Russian state-sponsored trojans, cacert_Updater.exe for ProxHTTPSProxy must therefore be clean, and this must be a false flag Why not just create a different SFX?

Kaspersky's flag of cacert_Updater.exe is most likely a false positive, only 5/74 scanners, including CrowdStrike, of virustotal flag the file: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/9f805311953057a944567d9a2e45ee4d65ffb7804925115b3b05bf02d3ff7821 When the content of cacert_Updater.exe is extracted with WinRAR, Kaspersky does not flag anything, so maybe Kaspersky doesn't like the .exe container. When cacert_Updater.exe is run in a sandbox, the program window "Mozilla trusted root certificates Updater" displays: "Do you want to update certificates?", maybe that's what Kaspersky doesn't like, no idea. With another root certificate updater for Windows, Cert_Updater_v1.6.exe (is a Windows Root Certificate Updater which I use for WinXP), Kaspersky does not flag anything when virus-checking.

Of course, you can download these files from the original source provided by @cmalex: https://mega.nz/folder/68dj2YTY#As2w31IO4Smr7gy6p1ciSg

Perhaps this has been asked before, but why is the bing background missing when the start menu is not activated (right) and only present when the start menu is activated (left)? Secondly, again I'm not sure if this has been asked, is it possible to add the Windows 10 Jump List style? Thanks for all your hard work over the years, @Tihiy, I've lost count how many licenses I purchased

Overall, 2011 Evanescence (re-issued in 2017 with the number 666999385377) French Vinyl is a surprisingly good album for the trash they released under the guise of Rock after the early 1990s. I just got the Vinyl, sounds super compared to the CD. Yes, the number starts with 666,

well this is sad news...

For starters, there are rules, and in contrast to you and another member starting with "V", I have to follow them. I could care less whether it was Shift, Capslock, or your stuck finger, you didn't have to write a poem about that. Broadcasting to odd links has been known for decades, including the ungoogled Chromium fork. The question is, whether it's the case with your edits of Monkey! "Now I got a new notification: Blocked attempted request to: http://www.95tat1c.qjz9zk/generate_204 Immediately after opening https://translate.google.com. I was logged in in Google (through web). What I'm wondering is that, is this normal behaviour? Do you guys too get these notifications regularly?" https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/104#issuecomment-254244492

Good afternoon, I ran into the problem that when you hover the mouse over any window, its preview opens behind any active window. In order for it to open correctly, you need to click to the taskbar.

I do, and you'd better not touch the veteran wolf of the internet. With your rep of 3.2K you're supposed to be at least somewhat *tech savvy*, and know how to use WinHex, no? Well, despite your usual disrespectful talk, I do. Now use a tutorial on how to get to this. Need help? Get back to me.

With modern browsers, they are "taught" to work with odd links, so like I said, it can and will try to connect. I think, there's still a discussion can be found on how they (ISP and whatnot) spot Ungoogled chrome, it broadcasts rubbish to the net because the developer simply broke Google links, like you, but didn't clean them up.

You can't, but the browser isn't "familiar" with randomly broken links, so it still tries to go there, whereas it was coded to properly deal with the address of 0.0.0.0. Meaning - attempt nothing when it "sees" the zeroes, since it's been a standard for many decades.

Of course it does work. Fast: "0.0.0.0 is not an address of anything". Slow: "127.0.0.1 is the loopback Internet protocol (IP) address also referred to as the “localhost.” The address is used to establish an IP connection to the same machine or computer being used by the end-user." And redirection can't be faster. All because. "You can't send data to 0.0.0.0 or actively open a TCP connection to 0.0.0.0 because there is nothing there; 0.0.0.0 isn't even an unreachable or non routable address" All quotes from here: https://superuser.com/questions/949428/whats-the-difference-between-127-0-0-1-and-0-0-0-0

I meant insert https://0.0.0.0 into Google lytics, not home page, And home page, simply edit it out completely, the whole string with the quotes, what's stopping you?

I got it to work (sort of...) by going to `about:config` and change the string of: general.useragent.override.youtube.com into: Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:115.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

It's the one I used in the past on XP. The error code means illegal instruction, so CPU doesn't support invoked instruction (SSE2?).

Annoying Sandboxie error message "Invalid comand line parameter" Many .rar etc downloads contain dubious stuff in nested subfolders with long path names. Very often, after having extracted a .rar and then, when trying to run a dubious file inside a long path name, Sandboxie does NOT run the file, but displays the annoying error message "Invalid command line parameter". This error message occurs under Sandboxie v5.22 (WinXP, SSE-only) and v5.40 (WinXP, SSE2), when the total path length (excluding the filename and the drive letter) exceeds 122 characters. The error message "Invalid command line parameter" does not indicate that something is wrong with the file itself, only that the path length is too long. When running many dubious little files, maybe 60% of the error messages generated by Sandboxie are "Invalid command line parameter". WORKAROUND: Copy the dubious little file into a temporary folder with a short path name, then run it sandboxed. I have attached a picture of this annoying error message, when you run notepad.exe sandboxed in a subfolder exceeding 122 characters. When the path length is reduced to 122 characters, notepad.exe runs OK in a sandbox.

But if you still insist there could be ordinary (1066MHZ), "officially" specced Hyper X found, please give us the link.

Thanks! Of course, I have known all this for a long time. Unfortunately, this is a matter of interpretation and definition. Mebibyte (MiB) did not exist in the past. And many use MB as what MiB is now. Explorer, Total Commander and myself use the following old designation MB. The following applies: 1024 B = 1 KB. 1024 KB = 1 MB. 93181864 B = 93181864 : 1024^2 MB ≈ 88.87 MB. That's what is MiB nowadays. The designation MiB emphasises the binary character of the unit and MB is now to be given only a decimal character. So, I agree with you, the Opera download manager on my Android tablet uses the decimal character of MB (1 MB = 1000 KB) and has, in itself, done nothing wrong. I personally prefer to stay with my old designation MB, which is always to be understood in a binary context (1 MB = 1024 KB). Thus, I am definitely not imprecise what of course is to be expected in science but simply old school. Best regards, AstroSkipper

Update notification! Panda Free Antivirus has been updated and is now of version 22.01.01. Furthermore, I added the link to @UCyborg's post Got Panda running on XP x64 and @VistaLover's provided, alternatve link for the offline installer to my article. Cheers, AstroSkipper

All horses back! The download manager in Opera on my Android tablet shows a wrong file size. Now, I am back at my desktop computer, and the file size of FREEAV.exe matches nearly the one you posted: 93181864 B (88.9 MB). I already corrected my posts. So this time, we seem to get the same offline installer regardless of our location. Kindest regards, AstroSkipper

I can remember very well. I checked my provided link some minutes before posting and the file FREEAV.exe has indeed the size of 93 88.9 MB. It seems to depend on the country from which you access the link. You know the proof is in the pudding. So, you can try to access the link with a German IP via VPN to check if the file size changes. I'll try to download the file with a Hellenic IP.

Or, one can use this link I have fetched from the online installer (93 88.9 MB) and provided im my post about Panda Free Antivirus: http://acs.pandasoftware.com/Panda/FREEAV/193309/FREEAV.exe

There is a big difference whether there is an official warning, such as that from the BSI, for a programme or not. Such official warnings do not exist for Malwarebytes, Panda and AVG, but they do for Kaspersky. Any turning off features changes nothing at all. TBH, such an official warning says it all. And finally stop with your anti- and pro-categories in this thread! That has no place here.

Please provide fact checked articles to support your claims. There's a huge difference between reporting to "home" (company) and directly to security services. So don't mix all in one bag. Did you read the article? Or you just saying this to supress any discussions about Kaspersky? The article shows pros and cons, a very balanced and polite article, I'd say. Light on memory on one hand, not recommended to use due to the newly checked facts - on the other. Everyone decides for himself.

I never had any problems with installers, and especially installers of antimalware programmes, in terms of detecting the .NET Framework versions installed under Windows XP Professional SP3 32-bit (and even including all POSReady updates). So, I can't confirm this statement. But under Windows XP 64-bit, this seems to be more the case. I personally am really glad not to have to use Windows XP 64-bit.