Leaderboard

It seems I've found what was the culprit !!! At least for me , it's the links that some of the members inlcude in their signature . 360 browser is indeed good, it marks additional resources as insecure and the browser is absolutely right , because I don't have any cert. for that resources. For example , it shows this warning on jaclaz's posts , I've opened some of his recent comments and I've got this warning right away ! Why the browser marks these resources as insecure , it's simple : no certs. With all due respect to this wonderful member . jaclaz.altervista.org http://jaclaz.altervista.org/Projects/freedom_of_skin.htm P.S. @beansmuggler , it makes no sense to compare the behaviour of Firefrox and any other chrome browser because firefox has it's own cert. system !

It works in a vanilla profile. From the pic you share, you have umatrix and ublock installed. YT changes settings monthly. Play with umatrix settings, in particular.

I think so, absolutely! I use it on my financial accounts! But "safe" is also always a 'relative' term. Ask an Amish person if YouTube is "safe to log into". I would personally suggest doing a little compare/contrast and witness web browser traffic yourself. For WinXP, grab a copy of Wireshark Portable version 1.10.14 (last version to work under XP) from here -- https://2.na.dl.wireshark.org/win32/all-versions/ Or NetworkTrafficView by NirSoft from here -- https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/network_traffic_view.html Or DNSQuerySniffer also by NirSoft from here -- https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dns_query_sniffer.html DNSQuerySniffer is probably the "easiest". Turn it on, open the browser that you "used to use" when you logged into YouTube, grab a screencap or select-all and copy-paste into a txt file. Now repeat the same task with 360Chrome then compare the two logs.

This sub-forum is led by the creator of the program in question. I have severe doubts that they will post the details on how to disable the watermark, especially since the pinned FAQ specifically states that the only way to remove the watermark is to donate.

It wasn't eMatrix, but something in uBO. When I disabled uBO on YouTube, I got a cookie consent overlay. When I accepted the terms and turned uBO on again, everything worked. I've now protected the "CONSENT" cookie (expiration date Jan 10 2038) with CookieKeeper (caa:addon/cookiekeeper), so that it won't be deleted when closing the browser. Thanks!

Well , for me it was an obvious choice when the problems with online shopping started . As you may know, Vista was cut off from browsing along with XP in 2016 . So I started looking for a browser long before the famous extended kernel project by @win32 started and found UC browser and 360 (a bit later) , of course I had to spend a big deal of time writing my own launcher and removing the telemetry . I think I shall continue to use 360EE in the future . Why ? The extended kernel doesn't help with extensions, like at all . For example , you can't install adblock on anything higher than Chrome 60 , terribly outdated. I did manage to pull a trick and forced the adblock with version 81 , but it is older than 360EE which is based on 86 . Do I have to explain any further ? So using the ex-kernel makes no sense for me , at least until the problem with extensions is gone . And with 360 I can use whatever I like/want .

Making a separate post to not further add to P.S. above. I just tried the compress.exe (version 2.00) from here: http://www.manmrk.net/tutorials/DOS/msdos.htm to compress a file, and it creates a SZDD header archive file that 7-zip opens just fine and identifies as MsLZ. Now, which (among the various versions of compress.exe, should the mscompress not work) tool might recreate the same type of compression as the file(s) you have is to be found out. Some more related info: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=386809#p386809 jaclaz

BTW , finally ! Today I've noticed youtube choppy video with 360 v.13 ! For those who are wondering , it's very simple , it has nothing to do with this browser itself , youtube started to serve some of the videos in AV1 (similar to H265) format wich is not supported by my dated PC which I use for the internet only . Even if I turn the hardware acceleration on , my 10 years old GTX titan is simply not able to decode H265 and the CPU usage goes up to 60-70% on all four cores , resulting in a very poor playback even for 1080p videos ! EDIT . The same is with VP9 codec.

Oh, I know what you did, you calculated to "today". Microsoft's CVE 2020-0601 security bulletin is ANCIENT, it didn't come out "today". I'm showing CVE 2020-0601 to be announced Jan 14, 2020 (568 days ago... 1 year 6 months 21 days ago... 18 months 21 days ago...)

But they would also not have even tested XP as that security bulletin is dated Jan 2020. Six years after XP support ended in 2014. Windows 7 support ended in Jan 2020 so unsure if they would have tested in 7 or not.

... Picking up from a "relevant" WinXP thread/post The first (v13.0.1) of the v13 series is also the last built on .NET FW 4.6.2, so with 4.6/4.6.1 installed on Vista SP2, I expect this specific (portable) version of ShareX to have the best compatibility with such an "installation scenario" (i.e. Vista SP2+.NF461) ; as noted previously, you'll have to modify the ShareX.exe.config file (adjacent to ShareX.exe) for the app to even launch: v13.0.1 sports a new dark theme (over previous v12.4.1) and generally, in my limited testing, works as expected (including update checks); one thing that doesn't work is the ffmpeg.exe binary auto-download (you should get a confirmation dialogue when selecting "Tools -> Video thumbnailer"), because versions before 13.2.1 were hardcoded to fetch from the now defunct Zeranoe builds repo (see attachment) ... In any case, that Zeranoe ffmpeg build was not Vista-compatible ; to rectify these issues, download manually a Vista-compatible ffmpeg.exe binary and place inside the following directory: "PortableRootDir\ShareX\Tools\" On launch, the app should pick up the existence of the binary and an entry should be created inside file "PortableRootDir\ShareX\Tools\ApplicationConfig.json", in my case, it's "FFmpegOptions": { "OverrideCLIPath": false, "CLIPath": "G:\\PortableApps\\ShareXPortable\\ShareX-13.0.1-portable\\ShareX\\Tools\\ffmpeg.exe", Because I was feeling adventurous , I decided to also test the latest ShareX version, i.e. v13.5.0; as @Vistapocalypse correctly pointed out here, this is built on .NET FW 4.7.2 (not 4.6.2), so I was quite curious to explore the possibility of it running on already installed 4.6.1 ; after, again, modifying ShareX.exe.config file (4.7.2 -> 4.6.1), I was surprised but pleased to discover the app did launch : Update checks do still work (the app reports it's up-to-date), as most other aspects of the program, but I must admit I haven't tested extensively... In contrast to 13.0.1, ffmpeg.exe auto-download works (it is now fetched, as a zip file, from a dedicated ShareX GitHub repository), but installation fails under my setup , because the extraction of the ffmpeg.zip file is delegated to functions only found on .NET FW 4.7.2+; the downloaded (zipped) binary is a saved copy of a ffmpeg-4.3.1-win32-gpl Zeranoe build, not launching under Vista (because of libx265 NUMA code), so it wouldn't accommodate even if extraction succeeded ; the "manual" installation route has to be followed here, too... What was the initial reason the devs dropped official Vista (and XP) support? Well, "they" had stated that on Vista update checks wouldn't be possible... So glad the Vista community proves them wrong!