Jump to content

AstroSkipper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,565

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    465

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AstroSkipper

  1. AstroSkipper
    I've also seen some screenshots of Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 in the MBAM forum, and all show a component package version of 1.0.365.
  2. AstroSkipper
    Thanks for your quick reply! Here is my screenshot of About: Same update package version! That's good. They have updated again. But what about your component package version? And did you read the linked topic? That sounds pretty serious to me.
  3. AstroSkipper
    That's awesome to know you have that working on your system. Thanks! And yep! It's been a couple of years now that I couldn't get Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 to work in my Windows XP system. And even MBAM's support couldn't help to fix this issue. Today I thought to try it the last time. I had to dig deep into my system and removed all the remnants of old security programs and others, including a manual cleaning of my registry. Apparently, it did something.
  4. AstroSkipper
    Hello @Dave-H! I finally got Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 working in my second system partition. I updated it, and the version of its definitions is 1.0.29410 I received today, 28-03-2023. Do you have the same version in your installation? Is that the most recent? I had a look at the MBAM forum and read some comment (also some of yours ). There I found this topic: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/295844-legacy-3512522-sudden-red-triangle-your-updates-are-not-current/#comment-1558895 It seems that Malwarebytes wants to completely discontinue support for version 3.5.1.2522, even under Windows XP. No further update of the definitions!? What do you know and think about this? Cheers
  5. AstroSkipper
    I totally agree! Errare humanum est! One of my favourite Latin sayings! BTW, I do and did not have any problems to be proved wrong. As a mathematician I see evidence for what it is. And this is never about sensitivities or subjective feelings, and it doesn't matter what kind of matter. In any case, you could see in my screenshot what I did. And that was important to me. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  6. AstroSkipper
    Very good proof! As a mathematician, I appreciate such proofs. Obviously, you're absolutely right, and I am wrong. And maybe, I am a bit dement, hopefully a bit! I am not the freshest one, though.
  7. AstroSkipper
    No problem! But my post already contained the sceenshot as it is when it went live the first time as far as I can remember correctly at least. Or am I a bit dement due to my age? Or maybe, you just overlooked it. Anyway! It's not the world either as we say here in Germany.
  8. AstroSkipper
    ... Did you remember to also toggle "dom.getRootNode.enabled" to "true"? These prefs are actually a "wedded couple", so to speak - if one is set to true, the other has to be set to true, too - and vice versa ... That's why I provided a screenshot in my post above. Didn't you see my preference settings in the extra window? The image actually speaks for itself. Additionally, I had inserted red arrows. Since we have discussed here the settings of dom.webcomponents.enabled and dom.getRootNode.enabled, I do control them that way. If both are set to false, the lamp goes on. If both are set to true, the lamp goes off. The lamp is in the toolbar to the right of my red CSP button. Don't let the many buttons confuse you! My browser configuration is very special and also a little more complex than usual. Here is my screenshot once again: I've already tested it again. Now both, Web Components and Palefill enabled, are working on VirusTotal. Very strange! Anyway! Thanks for summing up all essential facts! You know I read this thread as attentively as possible. And your posts in particular! And @roytam1's and @UCyborg's ones, too, of course!
  9. AstroSkipper
    In my main system partition, I'll stay with Panda Dome in any case. In my second system partition, I'll give Qihu 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 a try, based on my positive experience so far. I generally prefer lightweight antivirus programs. Avast and AVG are too bloated, very resource-hungry and cumbersome. I have had that pleasure in the past. But what can I say? Cheers, AstroSkipper
  10. AstroSkipper
    I have just tested VirusTotal in my New Moon 28 (2023-03-24) with dom.webcomponents.enabled set to true. But It only works properly if Palefill is disabled. If not, the homepage renders correctly but a file can't be uploaded. I thought Web Components and Palefill would not harm each other, but reality speaks a different language. Or was it just a coincidence? I'll have to check that the next days. If you're looking for problems, just turn on your computer!
  11. AstroSkipper
    Great news! Thanks for the information! To see VirusTotal working again is fantastic.
  12. AstroSkipper
    I used ESET NOD32 Antivirus 9.0.429.2 for years but this last XP-compatible version doesn't receive virus defintions anymore. I already wrote about that. Have a look here:
  13. AstroSkipper
    I also had a few crashes of xul.dll today, in the most recent release of New Moon 28 (2023-03-24), though. Here are two screenshots of these events:
  14. AstroSkipper
    I totally forgot to mention that the impact of system resources by Qihu 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 is very low. One hardly notices the presence of this program in the background. And that in my very old, weak system! Additionally, here is the version history of Qihu 360 Total Security Essential: I think I'll keep it on my second system partition for a while or longer. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  15. AstroSkipper
    Yep! A deeper look at the (server) certificates is always a good idea.
  16. AstroSkipper
    Qihu 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 is quite ok as an alternative in Windows XP where the choice of antivirus programs is very limited. Although I can't say much about the quality of its protection, you have the option of installing the Avira Scan Engine. This increases the detection rate of this program considerably, as AV-Test has shown in the follow-up version. Here is an image taken from the test: First a screenshot of the main interface: And now a screenshot of my security configuration especially in terms of the Avira Scan Engine: In this screenshot above, you see I changed the protection mode from the default Balanced to Custom, and I enabled the Avira Scan Engine. Or you set the maximum protection mode Security. This definitely improves the program's detection rate. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  17. AstroSkipper
    I did a second test, but instead of Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541, I installed Qihu 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 on my second system partition. I can't say anything about the quality of its protection either, but no such bloatware and desktop manager anymore.. The whole installation process is far more pleasant. There is an option to install additionally the browser Opera but you can untick it. Although the program is an older version from 18.12.2019, its virus definitions can still be updated. The installation file is 360TSE_Setup_8.8.0.1119.exe and is unfortunately no longer available on their homepage. But you can find it using a search engine in the internet, for example here: https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/360_total_security_essentials.html I really don't know why this product was abandonded. In the case of Qihu, once again, the newer the worse. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  18. AstroSkipper
    I did a short test of Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541 on my second system partition. I can't say anything about the quality of its protection, but quite a bit about the installer and what is installed. There is no way to do an individual installation. Particularly annoying is the so-called desktop manager, which is of course installed without being asked and has moved all my icons on the desktop. I don't like this program and can't recommend it. And I miss the main focus on security, but many unnecessary functions instead. Here is a link to a test performed by PCMag: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/qihoo-360-total-security-86 The results and evaluation are also quite poor, similar to my first impressions.
  19. AstroSkipper
    Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541 still supports Windows XP according to their homepage and is free of charge. Only the premium version is commercial. I never used it before. So I don't know anything about these installers from Qihu. Therefore, as always, be careful! The link on their homepage downloads an outdated installer with the version number 10.8.0.1382. Therefore, the download link must be updated to download the current version 10.8.0.1541. Here is the updated link: https://free.360totalsecurity.com/totalsecurity/360TS_Setup_10.8.0.1541.exe Edit: The download link on Qihu's homepage seems to have been updated now. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  20. AstroSkipper
    I know this list. AV-Test is always a good source to get information about antivirus programs. Unfortunately, this list is from 2014 and thus almost 9 years old. We have already discussed here some of the antivirus programs listed there. Including Qihu 360 Total Security which was already mentioned in this thread here: and here: Overloaded security programs are not my taste, but the current Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541 still seems to support Windows XP: https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/features/360-total-security/ The others on this list as for example Avira, Norton, BullGard, Trend Micro, Eset, G Data, and so on have given up any support for Windows XP a long time ago. Therefore, such lists are of little use today. So what are the new good options? I can't see them.
  21. AstroSkipper
    @mina7601! I am not paid by Panda and not a member of their support team, either. I hope you are not serious about sending me links containing malware files. If you have a problem with Panda Dome, can't configure it properly or can't operate it, please contact the support of Panda! Anyway! Do not send me any links containing malware files! That's a no-go!
  22. AstroSkipper
    No problem! Such things just happen!
  23. AstroSkipper
    That does not mean anything. Look at the system requirements! Or even more simple: just download the current setup file and try to install it in Windows XP. Then you will see.
  24. AstroSkipper
    But support of Windows XP is not listed. You have to look at the system requirements first. Read my post! And we already talked about all that in the past.
  25. AstroSkipper
    Where did you read that Webroot SecureAnywhere still supports Windows XP? I already wrote about that antivirus program here and some more: And here is a quotation from the site you linked:
×
×
  • Create New...