Leaderboard

Forgive the delay in my response. Obviously I would recommend the lists I used to use as well,you can find them in this thread a few pages back. You might also consider the experimental list below: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gwarser/filter-lists/master/lan-block.txt

Okay, I decided to put my money where my mouth is. I think you'll agree this to be proof. We know that UA-CH did not exist in Chrome 80 and we know that UA-CH is enabled by default in Chrome 92. html5test.com gives that "imitates" in the results for Chrome 80 and for Chrome 92 - has nothing to do with UA-CH (which I "think" was your claim, not sure? I can't follow your posts at times). And as my geometry teacher used to say -- Q. E. D.

Just for the fun of it , and intrigued by this latest "revival' of the e10s/Serpent topic, I went ahead and enabled e10s in my latest St52 [v52.9.0 (2021-07-16) (32-bit)] working profile, having it properly backed-up beforehand... This is an old, 2008 era, Vista SP2 32-bit laptop, with a Core2Duo CPU, an integrated GPU (with no h264 H/W decoding support) and a blacklisted, vendor customised, gfx driver, that can't be updated any further; in essence, an under-resourced PC by today's standards... I witnessed no crashes at all, but the expected increase in RAM consumption: I don't frequent facebook, instagram, twitter, tiktok, discord, etc. (the main villains ) and I only occasionally visit "GoogleTube" (because it's Google's, not yours... ), so the browser remained responsive on most sites I use ... HOWEVER, as part of my daily workflow, I must have several GitHub tabs open in Serpent 52; GitHub (and recently GitLab) is unusable in UXP browsers, unless JustOff's GitHub-WebComponents-Polyfill legacy extension is installed: https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/releases But said extension IS NOT electrolysis (e10s) compatible, so, sadly , I'll have to return to my single-process profile to continue using it on GitHub... Happy experimenting to the rest of you , I'll be still keeping an eye on this thread (though in a silent manner, I'm afraid) ... Best wishes

I'm feeling: Settled I'm going to take a much needed break from this great forum and return to my simple existence. Its is time for me appreciate what I do have and be thankful for every moment I have left remaining - the 'here and now' - 'today', as we never know what tomorrow will bring, or if tomorrow will even come! When security and privacy concern(s) morph into increased anxiety and worry .. that calls for a "Time Out" .. for me at least to regain (whats left of) my sanity. All the best to everyone - stay safe and healthy!

Nicolaasjan, thank you. I have already read this post, I also tried it, but I forgot the command "cd / d C: \ updates". Thanks to your notification, I have already successfully installed the IE9 update from March 2021 and I'm moving on :-) :-) :-)

If that concerns you, there is a workaround that you could try: https://msfn.org/board/topic/176686-server-2008-updates-on-windows-vista/?do=findComment&comment=1197007

Search has been fixed.

You seem to be confused on just what UA-CH does (or I am?) The agenda of UA-CH is to BYPASS the user agent completely. Detection based on UA-CH would detect your true browser REGARDLESS of whether you were faking a user agent or not. The html5 detected the faked user agent, so it has nothing to do with UA-CH, the "imitates" can be due to a hundred different things, various "combinations" that throw out the word "imitates" when Condition A plus Condition B is met. The whole agenda has very little to do with "privacy" or "telemetry" - though I would classify you as a bit more "extremist/alarmist" than I would classify myself. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." (A Seinfeld reference.) The purpose is for the website to know if you are on a MOBILE device versus a DESKTOP and to send the proper code for a proper rendering. If they succeed in rolling out this platform (way too early, not even sure if it exists "in the wild yet", just 'on paper') then those of us that FAKE user agent strings to FORCE a "heavy" web site to send us code based on less "hungry" javascript, as an example, will no longer be able to do that. The website will DETECT our TRUE "fingerprint" regardless of what we tried to FAKE by using the very old and everybody-knows-it "trick" of sending a FALSE user agent string. That's my understanding thus far at least. I'd be more than happy to read any respectable website link you may have that may indicate otherwise. The html5 test doesn't show me what I need to see as "proof". A "real" test that proves UA-CH is in fact "functioning and enabled" would be a test that reports "You faked your user agent to tell me you are Firefox on Linux, but I know better, you are really Chrome 86 on Win XP x64". Just catching XP x64 would really prove an advance to me, as almost all of these "test sites" including html5test.com refers to my XP x64 as Windows Server 2003. So that alone tells me that html5test isn't very "advanced".

HI there; @Drugwash.. I know we've never spoken and I'm relatively new here compare to many long time member of this great forum. Please know, we are reading and replying because we (do, truly) care. You seem to have been through the wringer, and while life dealt you a *tough* hand, you've made it thus far despite the odds being against you and nobody can (ever) take that away from you. You seem to have a strong will and I (vaguely) recall other people here were happy when you returned after a long time away; and even though you said you've lost the energy, I really feel you still have the will to survive through this journey. We never know as all our time is limited here. Honestly, I've learned to take life day-by-day now and that gets me through my rough times, and every day above ground, somehow, we can hold our heads up high. While our spirit is often weakened and we are brought to our knees, we owe it to ourselves to crawl until our last breath and never give up. While I (fully) realize you are at possibly the lowest point in your life, just know, you deserve to be on this planet as much as anybody else - regardless of any poor decisions you've made in the past. Nobody is without sin but we can't go back and do it over (and likely wouldn't want to either) but life is precious and you are special, so please remember that. and please, don't take this posting as any form of pity as I also don't like that and detect your are starting to feel like asking for support is doing such. I truly wish you well and hope somehow you'll find a way to get through this terrible time. Sincerely, ~Sal PS - and please don't feel any need to reply or respond to this posting and I only wrote it because your posting touched me.

This personally irritates me! I posted a First Run connections log for Basilisk several posts up. I counted eleven First Run connections in Basilisk yet they have gone completely unnoticed for "decades" yet one solitary gstatic connection in 360Chrome has the World in a Frenzy? Explain that, please! I'm showing Basilisk to make repeated connections with Cloudfare - why no frenzy? I'm showng Basilisk to make several connections with googleusercontent - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with deploy.static.akamaitechnologies - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with MCI Communications Services in Ashburn, VA - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with Microsoft Corporation at One Microsoft Way in Richmond, WA - why no frenzy? What am I missing here? A blind trust for anything Firefox? Again, I wholly and fully support taking measures to make our own browsing experience free of telemetry! I've got nothing to "hide" and there is a balance between returning to driving a horse-drawn buggy and just allowing telemetry to go unchecked. But I have to admit, I really don't think that it is too much to ask for the folks that have such a great concern for 360Chrome making one solitary gstatic connection to have an equal concern for what their Firefox browsers have been logging for DECADES but has gone "unchecked" or "blindly trusted".

UA hints works starting from chrome 85 (so v.13 is the first to include it) . What is this ? It is a new API which sends you real User Agent ! So you won't fool gurgle/youtbue and other corporations that are willing to know everything about you . It was implemented to restrict usage of UA spoofing extensions/flags/switches . I'm kinda the first to talk about it here . What am I afraid of ? I think we shouldn't write every thing we disable in the open , they know how to read too , you know ! I have like a ton of countermeasures in my version already . And not wanting them to know what exactly I was able to remove/disable , the most important is how and where exactly.

July 2021 updates installed fine again! https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=2021-07+server+2008

No problems here. I apply the Security Only Quality Updates and Cumulative Security Updates for Internet Explorer 9. http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=2021-03+server+2008 For Vista x64 you have to apply a workaround to install the Internet Explorer updates: - start cmd as administrator - change location to the folder that contain msu file, example cd /d C:\updates - copy/paste and execute these commands (preferably one by one) mkdir .\tmp expand.exe -f:*Windows*.cab *kb5000800-x64*.msu . >nul expand.exe -f:* *kb5000800-x64*.cab .\tmp >nul start /w PkgMgr.exe /ip /m:"%cd%\tmp\package_2_for_kb5000800~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.0.1.0.mum" /quiet /norestart start /w PkgMgr.exe /ip /m:"%cd%\tmp\package_3_for_kb5000800~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.0.1.0.mum" /quiet /norestart del /f /q *kb5000800-x64*.cab rd /s /q tmp Restart You can do this with each new IE9 update, just make sure to specify the correct KB number and name for package_2_/package_3_