NotHereToPlayGames

Email servers and communication protocols are "above my paygrade". My mantra is that if you are ONLINE, then your privacy is compromised. "End of story." We each, every one of us, has to decide just where to draw the line. On one extreme, you live in a hill, no phone service, no electricity, no running water, in a house weaved together from small tree limbs. On the other extreme, you're on FACEBOOK or TIKTOK but cite privacy or security "concerns" on web sites like MSFN.

Sending on a postcard is hilarious. Secure is secure only if all the players follow the rules. The last three "certified" letters I received via United States Postal Service were left at my house without so much as a SIGNATURE acknowledging receipt. H3ll, one of those three was left on my front door step where any light breeze could have sent it flying.

Bingo! I once had an ONLINE bank account try to DENY me an account because I *refused* to give them an email address for them to SOLICIT. I had to include THEIR corporate lawyers - it is ILLEGAL to conduct FINANCIAL BUSINESS over email, therefore you do NOT "need" my email address. NONE of my bank accounts have an email address!!! NONE of them. I do not need three emails telling me my statement is ready, four emails to confirm/verify a transfer between accounts, seven emails to solicit me into an account type I did not ask for, et cetera.

It's not just your e-mail address. It's also your phone number. Whenver I try to so much as get a haircut, they ask for my phone number. When I tell them "zero" they get all offensive so I tell them, I do not own a phone, so that makes my phone number ZERO.

AGREED! I remember telling DOZENS of mobile phone users that were begging for their landline number to be trasnferred to their mobile that they are not thinking through the consequences.

What do you drive? I drive an "Ungoogled Jeep with Chrome rims."

Very true. I only cite Proxomitron's POWER because if people want to STAY on XP, they can NOT do this just with polyfills alone. They will also need a way to do things that Proxomitron and Proxomitron ALONE can do. Two such examples that I required when still on XP + 360Chrome is the ability to "degrade" a CSS Level 4 :not() to a Level 3 :not() and the ability to "defuse" a CSS :where(). https://caniuse.com/?search=%3Anot()%20level%204 https://caniuse.com/?search=%3Awhere And only only ONLY with Proxomitron can you take a javascript section of code that is 150 pages long and rip 50 of those pages completely out and only send 100 pages to the browser. They are ripped out before the browser ever sees them, before uBO ever sees them, before NoScript ever sees them, before uMatrix ever sees them, et cetera. And they don't have to be 50 consecutive "pages", you can rip out page 2, page 12, pages, 20 thru 25, page 56, you name it. You can keep page 75 and the 200 words on page 75, but you can change 10 of those 200 words - before the browser ever sees them, before uBO ever sees them, et cetera.

POSReady2009 would be my guess. Perhaps KB4501226?

I "resemble" that remark. waka waka waka

not difficult to explain to me... i own a '55 Dodge and a '61 Studebaker...

Agreed. Here is today's Browser Irony - we have a lot of folks that polyfill old browsers to perform new tricks, myself included. This is mainly the XP Crowd though the Vista Crowd isn't much far behind in this regard - "keep old at all costs" (without any "cost analysis" that doing this COSTS MORE (both in personal time and CPU/RAM usage) then UPGRADING). But now that I'm on Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v114, I've actually found myself intentionally doing the OPPOSITE - tracking down what javascript functions run in v114 or newer and BREAKING THEM so that they do NOT "execute".

There are 10 types of people. Those that understand binary and those that do not.

That's exactly why I use Proxomitron but it is "too complex" for most people to "learn", they want something like uBO where "lists" are put together for them. Instead of teaching a man to fish and feeding him for a lifetime, web browser users just want that one fish to be fed to them one at a time, they have no interest in "learning how to fish". For example, the very MSFN page we are on right now has FIFTY scripts. My Proxomitron blocks 13 of them before the web browser even sees them (also why I do not need 20/30/60 uBO lists and my FIVE do just fine. I guarantee that my FIVE uBO lists coupled with my Proxomitron config is blocking way way wwaayyy more than those 20/30/60 uBO "spoon-fed" lists. ps - Proxomitron counts actual physical scripts, inline and fetched, unlike uMatrix or uBO which only counts fetched files.

It's been that way for TWENTY YEARS. Don't for one second think that the "padlock" in that address bar really means anything at all !!! It only ever really did back when ONLY bank sites had that "padlock" !!!

It looks to me like this port is NOT something that you port directly into your XP. Rather, it is something that is "compiled" with the program that you want to then run on XP. ie, you use this to create a version of Supermium or Thorium that will "do" ECC when ran on XP.

I'm talking strictly XP. I have NO USE for Thorium or Supermium on my Win10 machines.

That's because that flag is originally an Official Ungoogled Chromium flag and Supermium hasn't (yet) started importing patches from Ungoogled repository.

Not likely. It means the issue is with some time zones and not all time zones and that your time zone is working correctly.

I personally WANT a v114 !!! released of Thorium and Supermium. 114... 114... 114... I have ZERO need for v122 and ZERO need for chasing Chrome with the whatever update they release every five d#mn days or so. BOTH of these projects, IMHO, should revert to v114 !!! Only AFTER the kinks are worked out and v114 is STABLE should these developers start chasing Chrome's every five d#mn days update schedule.

Bingo! While it is a great thing for Supermium and Thorium to bring "cutting edge" browse-ability to XP, it is clear that XP is quickly quickly quickly becoming something only seen in RETIREMENT HOMES. You know, where the user has 40 minutes to perform what would only take 4 minutes in Win10.

Chrome/Chromium has used an internal cert store in addition to the OS cert store since v105 and it has been enabled by default since v108. To the best of my knowledge, I do think that Official Chrome, Official Ungoogled Chromium, Supermium, and Thorium all fetch these as opposed to them being "bundled". I'll concede to anyone much more in-the-know. My only intent was to demonstrate that the same EXACT browser in XP will not have the same level of security as it does in 10. ECC cert shortcomings in XP has been known for a VERY long time. It is nice to see the backport cited a few posts ago, so that SHORTCOMING is being addressed. XP cert store cannot "do" ECC. But as demonstrated, Mypal only performs this because it is not using the XP cert store. How Supermium is performing this is a NIGHTMARE to figure out, it is simply UNSTABLE and pegs my CPU at 100%, crashes too often, et cetera, for me to have the patience to even ATTEMPT to sort it out.

Heck No! But if we are to truly be "fair and consistent", we should fine-tooth-comb Supermium and Thorium equally and not assume either to be safer than the other.

IMPLIED. But sure, I should have clarified that "WinXP" was referring to WinXP's cert store. SEMANTICS.

Technically, I'm not a fan of INTERNAL cert stores. TRUST ME, it is EXTREMELY easy to release a web browser who's address bar ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS shows a "secure padlock" with made-up details to lead the user into a FALSE sense of "security". We do have MSFN Members that would not be fooled, but trust me, it is EXTREMELY easy to do. And several HUNDRED members here would never know - not until the small handful of a half a dozen or so showed up and pointed it out.