NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Has anyone using Supermium on Win10 been able to pass a Widevine Test such as this one ? I'm assuming that I am overlooking something simple.
-
Also, upstream v135 or so (ie, only us 10 or 11 users have seen it in action) now has an option to NOT USE chrome's color scheme but use the OS COLORS instead! But it will take several MONTHS for these upstream changes to trickle down to all of the forks.
-
No clue. Upstream changed the title bar colors around v126 or so, forget exactly. My profiles in everything from Brave, to Supermium, to Ungoogled, to regular Chrome all use my own theme that works in all of them and reverts to the same title bar colors used in XP. I cannot really test without undoing my profile. I use the same EXACT profile in ALL of my Chrome-based. As long as I always go UP a version or two instead of down, I've never had any issues.
-
What blue and where?
-
This is "only" a Dark Mode Issue, in my not-so-humble-opinion. I have no problem whatsoever with Supermium in "normal mode".
-
Already tried that. Does not work. Each and every launch reaches out to "go-updater.brave.com". Removing that string from chrome.dll doesn't even stop the each and every launch from contacting "go-updater.brave.com".
-
I was able to download v132 R1 just seconds ago. In fact, it's very likely going to be my default browser on a bedroom laptop being set up for streaming. Hope not to be speaking too soon, trial-ran Brave yesterday and NOT a fan of all the bitcoin BS and NOT a fan of no way to disable auto-update-check. So today's project is setting up Supermium for all of my streaming needs.
-
Time Bomb Fix = https://github.com/weolar/xpchrome/issues/11#issuecomment-1822125826
-
You have me confused with somebody else. Sounds like a good thing to me. Solving the captcha only helps them clean up the dirt. Why would any Privacy Rights advocate want to help them clean up the dirt?
-
That's supposed to be GOOD, isn't it ??? If a web site doesn't know that I'm human, then that web site doesn't have my fingerprint on file. I think this is the third time I've mentioned this, I NEVER ANSWER ARE-YOU-HUMAN CAPTCHAs.
-
"So what!" Your claim was that YouTube/Invidious was blocking based in CRC checks. Opera, Chrome, Chromium, Firefox, you name it, is not reporting their "nightly" CRCs to YouTube so that their users can use YouTube.
-
That's Opera. Chrome/Chromium does not have these signature files. Could also be why there are *hundreds*, literally!, of Chrome/Chromium Forks.
-
No clue. If I were to throw out my own Conspiracy Theory, it is because I *NEVER* answer "are you human" checks. *NEVER*. If a site has to bounce me through a check like that, I just move on to a different web site.
-
I'm not seeing the difference. Browsers do not have "file access permissions" to even their own .dll files as far as a remote server or web site running a CRC check. Would be a gigantic security vulnerability.
-
Consider the H#LL^SH NIGHTMARE that such a CRC-confirmation algorithm would entail !!! This new Conspiracy Theory injected by D.Draker claims a browser is being blocked because a CRC-check "failed". Under this paradigm, nobody could ever use "nightly" build web browsers, the server would have to update their CRC Lists every two to four weeks (we all know how often OFFICIAL browsers are updated), et cetera. Bottom Line = nobody is being blocked based on any CRC Check. Not happening. Not in this universe. Not in any Parallel Dimension. Simply not happening.
-
Fair enough. But that does NOT indicate that CRC checks are being performed on system files! That is something that would require advanced file access permissions ADDED to the browser. Browsers by default can not perform CRC checks on system files. I'm quite CERTAIN of that! "Until proven otherwise." And the onous (spelling) really is not on "me" on that one.
-
I can NOT confirm this. My UNMODIFIED OFFICIAL CHROME asks if I am human. So no, the site does not run without any verification. At that point, I close the page, I prefer to NEVER so much as ATTEMPT to answer these, that only lands you on a fingerprint database. edit: Correction - my UNMODIFIED OFFICIAL UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM asks if I am human. I can test Official Chrome and Official Edge at work, I do not have them here at home (at least not at the moment, I could add to a VM if needed).
-
Okay, that I believe. There is no conspiritorial CRC check on system files and nor are you claiming there to be. Define "doesn't work". Because even my Official Chrome requests an "are you human" test at allegro.pl. Personally, I "move on" whenever I get these. One only adds themself to fingerprint databases by solving them.
-
I shall entertain followup's to you and your provided details. Are you saying that allegro.pl *WORKS* with Chrome 122 and an UNTOUCHED kernel32? But does *NOT WORK* with the modifed kernel32? From my understanding with this new info, it would be extended kernels that are being blocked by YouTube/Invidious and not a CRC-checked Chrome 122 being blocked!
-
And no! You can NOT come back with yet another "You're welcome to provide explanation" BS redirects! The onous (spelling) is on YOU. You threw out a CONSPIRACY that YouTube/Invidious is somehow performing a "malicous CRC check", something that (to the best of my knowledge) CANNOT BE DONE !!! A web browser can NOT perform CRC checks on system files. This CONSPIRACY is on YOU to PROVE, not for any of us to "disprove". It is you that injected this CONSPIRACY. My FINAL two cents on the matter... Until you can PROVE this newfound CONSPIRACY as nothing more than something YOU MADE UP ALONG THE WAY. Sure, I would believe that YouTube/Invidious is possibly blocking CLEARLY FALSE AND MADE UP metrics like clienthints or something, but performing a CRC check on a system file? THAT I AM NOT "BUYING", my dear friend...
-
That would make sense. But how were any of us to know that "one bit of dll" was changed? I kind of still don't believe this and see it as a Conspiracy Theory since no screencap illustrates this claimed before-and-after scenario. From here, it just sounds like you are "making it all up as we go". Give me details on the "bit" that was changed in Chrome 122. I will test your theory by changing that "bit" here. Until then, I am moving on now, this is all just being "made up as we go" as far as I'm concerned.
-
You're welcome to provide sources. Because without any sources it just sounds like a gigantic Conspiracy Theory (which MSFN seems historically infamous for propagating). I have never heard of browsers performing CRC checks on file systems.
-
Wouldn't that make the BROWSER malicious? Not the web site that the browser is visiting? ie, I'm not sure if "server-side" can perform CRC checks on system files unless the browser itself is malicious?
-
Try a different video. Or, perhaps more imporantly, try at 4am local time. Or, maybe they do "know you" and want nothing to do with you. Waka waka waka.
-
I am aware. I get that same error at times. I'm not blocked at YouTube or Invidious. Are you running through a VPN? Some websites *deny* access to users on VPNs.