Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,095

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    "Upstream" have been made aware ( ), https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=30752 no response so far from them ...
  2. VistaLover
    ... Or one can use a specific extension to that effect : https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/addon/wctoggle/
  3. VistaLover
    ... A technical explanation about all the above is to be found here ; Microsoft will no longer allow you to "hotlink" (directly to) GitHub user attachments (to save them bandwidth, so they're really being "cheap" here ) ...
  4. VistaLover
    The suspect commit has been now reverted: Revert "No issue - Allow embedded search module in HYPE_ICEDOVE project" Will probably reach next weekend's binary releases; those (few?) Icedove users can always revert to the previous release, couldn't they?
  5. VistaLover
    Happy New Year! While the post containing that link has had already 4 (!) reactions, I find it impossible to download the installer from the SoftPedia link ; any attempt will produce a "404: Not Found" server response ... Before you start a "wild goose chase" , I can tell you my internet connection is fine, also tried in several browsers beyond my default, Serpent 52... SoftPedia aren't hosting the installer themselves, instead they try to fetch it from the original vendor URL: ... which now just 404s ... I did my own search and the latest version of IP Hider Pro was v6.1.0.1 from, as you said, early 2017; additionally, it appears that the "iphiderpro.com" domain is now up for sale... Elsewhere I found a self-hosted installer of IP Hider Pro v5.8.0.1 (from Sep 2016), but I'm very reluctant to even launch it now - I very much doubt the original vendor/company is still a "thing", let alone that their Proxy Servers are still ON... Has anyone here actually tried this application and found it to be still working (in trial mode)? Kindest regards.
  6. VistaLover
    ... With a bit of URI-tinkering , you can still make this a one-step-process, too... When you hover your cursor over the "Download" button (for v2.0.1), the URI revealed is: https://ca-archive.us.to/storage/55/55977/sidebar_bookmarks_search_plus-2.0.1-fx.xpi?origin=caa&action=download If you modify the last query parameter to "&action=install", i.e. https://ca-archive.us.to/storage/55/55977/sidebar_bookmarks_search_plus-2.0.1-fx.xpi?origin=caa&action=install and "Paste-&-Go" that in the browser's URLbar, then: In any case, as you said already, "Not a big deal" ...
  7. VistaLover
    Here's the original extension thread on the Mozillazine forums: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1659985 Apparently, there even existed a dev version 2.0.2, but it's nowhere to be found now ... Right ; the extension (v2.0.1) installs out-of-the-box in my dirty St52 profile, though it does need a browser restart to properly work... Works as intended in my dirty St52 profile here: Are you, by any chance, running St52 in the hack-y, unsupported, multi-process mode? The extension was initially created at a time e10s was not even an idea for the Mozilla Firefox browser ; in any case, I, too, can confirm that SBSP-2.0.1 works OK in my (2023-12-15) St52 copy, in the default, supported, single-process mode...
  8. VistaLover
    ... According to my Web Console, the GET XHR request to retrieve/display the CSS code of "youtube-nyan-cat-progress-bar-video-player-theme" (styleID=95033) is to: https://gateway.userstyles.org/styles/getStyleCss/95033 ... but the server response is: { "result": "{}" } which echoes the screengrab I attached above ...
  9. VistaLover
    ... Problems with the "userstyles.org" portal and UXP-based browsers have been well documented here, especially since the site adopted its new "atrocious" web design... At the end of December 2023, things have gotten really dire ... In latest NM28 [v28.10.7a1 (32-bit) (2023-12-21)], trying to simply load: https://userstyles.org/ will get you nowhere ; Web Console prints: The resource from “https://userstyles.org/” was blocked due to MIME type mismatch (X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff). Creating a SSUAO with the passe-partout value of just "Chrome" will get you in... general.useragent.override.userstyles.org;Chrome ... But... Selecting a specific userstyle, e.g. https://userstyles.org/styles/95033/youtube-nyan-cat-progress-bar-video-player-theme will bring a popup window; we already know from the past that the "Install Style" button there simply does nothing, even if you have a style manager already installed; it appears that button ONLY works when the "Stylish" Chrome extension is installed (on a Chromium-based browser, of course...). Some months ago, it was still possible to get the actual CSS code for the userstyle itself by scrolling down the popup window and clicking on the "SHOW CSS" area; however, currently, this procedure would only generate an EMPTY black overlay, devoid of the sought for CSS code : @AstroSkipper, can you kindly check if you can reproduce ? If I can't grab any CSS code anymore from "userstyles.org", it's totally useless now for me in the context of St52/St55/NM28 ... To add insult to injury, specific userstyle pages no longer load even in 360EEv13.x/Kafan MiniBrowser: Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information). Don't have Mypal68 here - I doubt it would work, either... Damn those web-frameworks targeting exclusively last week's Chrome release...
  10. VistaLover
    Again, this ISN'T an SSL/TLS related issue, but a UA-based block ; in last week's St52, I, too, get the same error as you, but, surprise, I "get in" with below SSUAO: general.useragent.override.elektroda.pl;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0 EDIT: Of course, a SSUAO with a value of just "Chrome" will also enable access to both "www.elektroda.pl" (original, Polish edition) and "www.elektroda.com" (global edition, in English) ...
  11. VistaLover
    Latest St52 was supposed to have come with an "X" SSUAO fix, but it didn't , for whatever reason - see here...
  12. VistaLover
    https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/4b5b374f48a80d44dafc413856f25383c428e42b ... Most sadly , this doesn't seem to have "arrived" (properly/in time? ) in the latest St52 x86 release: As a consequence, "X" nags about a "no longer supported browser" ...
  13. VistaLover
    ... By now, I'm sure ALL of NM28's users are aware that this browser, much like its upstream progenitor (Pale Moon), does not support any form/type of the Web Extension (WE) add-on format; be that as it may, inside NM's "about:config" tab one can find at least seven (7) prefs with the "webextension" string in their names: extensions.webExtensionsMinPlatformVersion;42.0a1 extensions.webextensions.keepStorageOnUninstall;false extensions.webextensions.keepUuidOnUninstall;false webextensions.storage.sync.enabled;false webextensions.storage.sync.serverURL;https://webextensions.settings.services.mozilla.com/v1 webextensions.tests;false webextensions.webRequest.requestBodyMaxRawBytes;16777216 Do the above still serve a purpose for New Moon? I suspect they're more tied to the platform (UXP) itself rather than the application (NM), however, given the fact NM28 is being compiled without the " --enable-webextensions" buildconfig flag, wouldn't it be more "sane" if they were absent/removed altogether from within NM28's config editor? FWIW, "Mozilla Sync" is not-a-thing-anymore for UXP-based browsers (thus, the "webextensions.storage.sync.serverURL" pref is invalid at its current, default, value , even for St52), while "Pale Moon Sync" (which fork users aren't ethically/legally entitled to use - have never tried it myself) doesn't support WE (thus, "webextensions.storage.sync.enabled;false" is redundant) ; @roytam1, your thoughts on this, please... Best wishes !
  14. VistaLover
    Hi Roy ; for some OT-to-this-thread reason , I went inside St55's "about:config" tab (aka "advanced pref editor") and while filtering entries with "general.useragent.override.", I observed below ten results: general.useragent.override.zoho.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.soundcloud.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.mozilla.org;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.mozilla.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.github.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.firefox.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.deviantart.net;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.deviantart.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.altibox.no;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 general.useragent.override.altibox.dk;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:None) Goanna/20170101 Basilisk/55.0.0 that all have the "rv:None" slice ; this "None" value isn't resolved further at runtime when you actually visit one of the affected domains (e.g. "www.mozilla.com"), it is my conviction "None" is an invalid value for a platform revision... I dug this further and the source code file: application/basilisk/branding/shared/uaoverrides.inc has, e.g., for mozilla.com this line: pref("@GUAO_PREF@.mozilla.com","Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:@UXP_VERSION@) @UXP_DATE_SLICE@ @APP_SLICE@"); I believe this code was ported over sometime from UXP (St52/NM28/e.a.), however in St55, which is NOT a "true" UXP member, it appears "@UXP_VERSION@" resolves at build time to "None", which doesn't look right ; I just checked and NM28/St52 do not have any default SSUAOs with a "rv:None" slice, e.g. NM28 has: general.useragent.override.mozilla.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:4.8) Goanna/20230101 PaleMoon/28.10.7a1 Hopefully, this can be fixed in the next St55 release ...
  15. VistaLover
    ... Well then, here you go : https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005602/wireless/legacy-intel-wireless-products.html A SSUAO for "intel.com" might be needed - YMMV ... OT: "Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection" is the one my 2008 Vista x86 (then OEM) laptop came with...
  16. VistaLover
    Actually, the default (global) UA string of St52 does NOT advertise it as Fx52, but as Fx102 (the previous ESR branch/channel, current being 115); this UA string does contain an end "Basilisk/52.9.0" slice but, judging from past experience using the browser , UA-sniffers either silently ignore it or outright block it altogether (not the case with "www.intel.de"; the block stays put if I remove the Bk slice) ...
  17. VistaLover
    ... Yes, it's an arbitrary, unjustifiable, artificial block imposed by © Intel, based solely on UA-sniffing ; I'm still on St52 v52.9.0 (2023-11-10) (32-bit), i.e. only one month old, and I, too, get the "Access Denied" (Web Console reports: [HTTP/2.0 403 Forbidden]) block at the door ; guess what? Create a SSUAO with just the string "Chrome" in it and... you're in: general.useragent.override.intel.de;Chrome ... This has gotten ridiculous, if you ask me ...
  18. VistaLover
    Festive greetings Dave ; I can reproduce the initial loading and subsequent (tab) crash of the referenced TrendMicro link with my 360EEv13 (Ch86-based) copy (NOT a build made by NHTPG, BTW ) ; the error generated is identical to the screengrab posted by Skorpios ; however, I have more to report, see below: Somehow , I'm not able to reproduce here; my Kafan MiniBrowser (Ch87-based) "dirty" profile is able to load in a "rock-steady" fashion Dave's link, both in a "normal": as well as in a private window (with uBO enabled): Proof of browser used (Greek locale): uBO-v1.54.1b9+Privacy Badger v2023.12.1 installed; plus, several "experimental" flags enabled (inside chrome://flags ) ; FWIW, that same link loads OK in the UXP-based browsers (NM28/St52) and even in FxESR 52.9.x, so XP users aren't left without options beyond 360EE ... Cheers !
  19. VistaLover
    1) The last MV2 release of "Who Deleted Me" Chromium extension is v2.0.16, from 2020/04/09: https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/344799/ 2) The last MV2 release of "Fluff Busting Purity" Chromium extension is v35.0.0.0, from 2022/10/08: https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/297286/ In both cases, click the links labelled: "Download Crx File from Crx4Chrome" and save the .crx files to disk; open the chrome://extensions (or chrome://myextensions) tab in 360EE, enable developer mode and then drag-n-drop there one of the .crx files; a prompt should appear, asking you whether you want to proceed with the extension installation, etc. - do the same with the second of the downloaded .crx files... DISCLAIMER: While these older extension versions are compatible with/will install in Chrome < 88.0, their actual functionality might be impaired and/or flawed (as subsequent, MV3, versions were released after them, "presumably" to fix bugs/add more features) ... Regards ...
  20. VistaLover
    Top of the morning to you ; I'll be traveling soon 400km away from home, won't be back until Monday ; I had only a cursory look at your posted details (thanks!), it is now evident your CPU lacks the SSE2 instruction set by the mere fact you've installed the "-ia32" & "-sse" variants of the UXP browsers (I presume the default "-xpmod" varieties can't run on your setup ...). Success reports thus far had to do with the "normal" SSE2+-capable NM28/St52 builds, on at least WinXP SP3 32-bit systems; your system is indeed quite old, TBH (and I have 0 experience with a Win2k+KEx system) ... WebGL errors aside, I think the crux of your predicament is: Given that you have already tried fresh profiles, the about:config pref below should be at its default value of true: javascript.options.wasm;true It is my belief/educated guess that the WASM code inside the Anti-Bot-Verification test emits SSE2 instructions, that your very old CPU (P3) is incapable of executing ; am afraid nothing can be done to mitigate this; I must go now, forum experts like @roytam1 or even @UCyborg are free to chime in with additional info/details, if known to them ... Kind regards ...
  21. VistaLover
    ... Of course you're correct , I mis-pasted the version details of the latest NM28 release, its package filename being palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32-git-20231202-d849524bd-uxp-aa8671dc1b-xpmod.7z In fact, "(2023-11-17)" was the version prior to me updating to the "true latest" one, (2023-11-30), for the sake of testing; my daily UXP-based "driver" is St52, I update my NM28 copy less frequently; actual test mentioned in my previous post was performed on the (2023-11-30) build ; I don't expect noteworthy differences in the test results across recent NM28 builds - as the relevant discussion has revealed already, the deciding factor here seems to be H/W (how powerful your CPU is) ... Am not surprised, the underlying platform being common ; and you do possess a powerful recent machine, so, just like UCyborg reported, you achieved < 10s in test completion time... However, we've not heard back from @anton12 yet ...
  22. VistaLover
    Hi ; are you just referring to the "zipped" distributions: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/download/v119/supermium_119_32.zip https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/download/v119/supermium_119_64.zip or is it you are employing some kind of portable launcher with these ? AFAIAA, even the "zipped" version would write its profile (aka "User Data") in %LOCALAPPDATA%, is this not the case? FTR, I'm on Vista SP2 32-bit and would like to test the freshly implemented Vista x86 support, but am not really comfortable with a "proper" installation ... Cheers.
  23. VistaLover
    Returning, hopefully, on topic , I tried your "problem" in a quasi-fresh profile in latest NM28 [28.10.7a1 (32-bit) (2023-11-30)]; only extension installed is uBO-legacy v1.16.4.31b2 ; I first disabled it fully and then acquired a German IP address via VPN; when I accessed https://www.huk24.de/zugang/registrierung/anmeldedaten an overlay appeared that asked me to consent to their cookie-setting in my browser (I didn't read it all, I just pressed the "Zustimmen" blue button), then the "Registrierung" page loaded; as soon as I accessed with my cursor the "E-Mail-Adresse" input field, the "Anti-Roboter-Verifizierung" process auto-kicked-in (alternatively, I guess, you can skip the two input fields and go straight to the "Hier klicken" button); in NM28 it took ca. 85s for the process to complete successfully and yield the "Ich bin ein Mensch" result... All I can tell you is that the process is CPU/RAM-intensive, for the duration the bar moves to the right (towards completion), my CPU was constantly at 100% (2009-era Intel Core2 Duo); I conducted several additional tests and by exiting all unneeded running applications and having only this one tab open in NM28, I achieved a completion time of just 39s ... What you need to concentrate on here is the fact the anti-robot-verification did complete successfully! How old exactly is your CPU? Does it support the SSE2 instruction set? How much RAM do you have available for the browser? If the process does require an SSE2 CPU, then you'd be out of luck if your CPU can't cope ... In your initial post you said i.e. you did not say "it started but takes an awful lot to finish" - as AstroSkipper wrote, even with a very old CPU, the process would ultimately finish (though I do agree 5-6min is way too much ) ; my advice to you is to try again with a fresh NM28 profile (I assume you have updated to the latest NM28 release ) - give it the 5min reported here and see how it goes... I, too, ended up on that "Registration is currently not possible" webpage during my testing; clearing browser cookies and trying anew several times did finally yield the proper "Registration" page (the one inside AstroSkipper's post) - however, for the sake of just this test, you can click on the "Zur Anmeldung" label and be served another page which also contains the ""Anti-Roboter-Verifizierung" test/button ...
  24. VistaLover
    Both of you are GitHub account owners , there's a comment section at the bottom of the userscript's homepage (it's being hosted on GitHub Gist), so, perhaps, if the author was made aware, he could investigate and, hopefully, accommodate it for Google's Advanced Search ... Just saying ...
  25. VistaLover
    Many thanks for this ; in the end, I used your hint and integrated there (inside the userscript) the uBO cosmetic filter I posted earlier ; it saves slightly more vertical pixels than your code alone; since I'm on a small laptop screen, any vertical space saved counts! #restored-pagination .YyVfkd { color: ${isDarkMode ? "#bdc1c6" : "#202124"}; font-weight: normal; } + + #cc, .w7LJsc.WZH4jc { + display: none !important; + } </style>
×
×
  • Create New...