NotHereToPlayGames

YouTube 01 - Autoplay, CC, Annotations, Stable Volume, Ambient Mode, Home

I rarely (if ever) use YouTube these days. But these are all of the userscripts and userstyles I was using. A couple of these may need updated, not really sure, but the all seemed to work as of a few weeks ago when I last visited YouTube.

<del, all of the "spoilers" nested inside each other, so I'll have to post one at a time instead of all-in-one>

No clue. But my take would be this - if an admin deleted something, it was for a reason, and OTHER MEMBERS "regurgitating" deleted content is GROUNDS FOR THEIR "DISAPPEARANCE" as well.

Your obsession sounds like a mental health issue. Seek help.

Well, YES, the site *IS* compromised, PLAIN AND SIMPLE !!! WE ALL TAKE A RISK JUST BY VISITING !!! Personally, for you folks that have been affected, I *often* ask myself, "Wow! Why are they even still here! I would not continue to visit if that sh#t was happening to me!"

The user should think of it this way, by using a Google DNS server, you DOUBLE your "footprint of trackability". Your ISP *always* can track you. *ALWAYS* Regardless of whether you use their DNS or not. By using Google's DNS instead of your ISP's DNS, you voluntarily provide Google with "records" they would not have otherwise had. But in this day and age, you really cannot prevent those "records" anyway. But I am of the view that if I can configure my machine to hand out 100 "records" per day compared to other configurations handing out 9,999,999 "records" per day, then I've done the best I can.

They have been hacked before, they will be hacked again. Granted, first article I found is from a year ago, with Google ADMITTING that their DNS was hijacked. All it takes is a temporary hijack and YOUR CONFIG'S DNS CACHE to keep the "redirect" active forever (or until that cache is flushed) on YOUR CONFIG. https://umatechnology.org/googles-public-dns-servers-hijacked-traffic-redirected-for-more-than-22-minutes/

Yeah. Until proven otherwise. It's not that difficult for you to change your DNS, disable "secure DNS", FLUSH YOUR DNS CACHE, and tell us if you are still redirected (or whatever you prefer to call it). Heck, it's probably just a simple matter of FLUSHING YOUR DNS CACHE (but I would have assumed this to be "Step One" for anyone affected).

I'm a bit confused on just what is being called an "installer". Are we talking about Windows Operating System KBxx hotfixes only? I kinda have to assume that we are. If we are talking about something like Office 2000, XP, 2003, 2007, or 2010 (all of which have their own KBxx list of hotfixes), then alternate methods of DEPLOYMENT (versus "installing") is really nothing new. Heck, I've been copy-pasting my Microsoft Office "folder structure" from one machine to another (ie, when the first machine is dying and I'm about to send it to Silicon Heaven) to the replacement machine, exporting some registry keys, importing to the replacement machine, and everything works perfectly fine and I've been doing that for 20 years. Works great for Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. Outlook is a different beast altogether, can be done, but not as easy. Migrating / "deploying" from one machine to another has never really technically required a "re-install". Just copy-paste and export-import. Done. And yeah, it's FASTER than "installing".

Kind of what I SUSPECTED. Can you see if the issue of redirecting (or whatever you prefer to call it) still exists if you do NOT use secure DNS? Don't forget to FLUSH YOUR DNS CACHE also.

Also, is update.exe "called" just once? Or is it "called" multiple times?

Bingo!

Ah yes, that is correct. BUT... there's still a finite amount of time when one installation ENDS *before* a second can BEGIN.

There is also the way that Windows has to wait for a previous "installer" to completely terminate before another "installer" can begin. Same goes for when you go to "uninstall" something. You can only uninstall one at a time or get hit with a message to wait for the first to complete. The standard "WaitToKillAppTimeout" is TWENTY SECONDS. So if you are installing 150 installers sequentially, 150*20/60 is FIFTY MINUTES of just waiting for those timeouts. I can't speak for ever witnessing these sorts of KBxx install durations because I never install KBxx's. I sometimes slipstream into my install disk, but for the most part I only run "first release" versions of Windows and NEVER UPDATE THEM. The only time I ever "update" Windows is when I go from FIRST RELEASE of a 2016 version of Win10 to a FIRST RELEASE of a 2022 version of Win10. In my XP days, I *NEVER* updated via KBxx. I installed XP. Formatted, installed XP+SP1. Formatted, installed XP+SP2. Formatted, installed XP+SP3. Never anything past SP3 (including never installing any of the "illegal" PosReady2009 stuff).

It sounds to me like you are removing all of the pre-requisite checks. Microsoft KBxx updates don't "install" just because you double-click them, they analyze your system and run checks to see if the update even qualifies for your system. Those checks take time that have nothing to do with writing a file or registry entry.

Interesting. Could the affected tell us what they have these settings at? I have all three DISABLED (always have, will never use, DO NOT TRUST THEM). It would be interesting to see if these "protections" are what is CAUSING this to those affected. But... I don't even think these were present in Iron v109 (the oldest browser being affected, if I recall).

AGREED !!!

Yep! Openly mocking! But I REALLY do think that there is NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE to "prevent" this. I really do think that! Or why would it not be fixed by now? It's been two months since this issue has been brought to everyone's attention. I kind of view it along these lines, "We have 200 active members, all 200 remain active, we haven't lost any members, therefore this is a NON-ISSUE that we can IGNORE." (I have no clue how many ACTIVE members we have, 200 is probably HIGH but also depends on just what is meant by "active")

I can't help but think that those that are afflicted with this issue is MAKING IT WORSE by confirming the issue exists. Kind of like how most search engines move most-visited or most-relevant to the TOP. Kind of like how fake "unsubscribe" spam links don't really unsubscribe you, but rather inform the spammer that they have a legit email address. By confirming the isssue (over, and over, and over again), aren't you basically creating some form of confirmation "DNS Cache"? By confirming the issue, aren't you basically voluntarily and willfully handing over your IP Address to "whomever is behind this"?

Again, I revert to this, You and I will *NEVER* know.

If something server-level was compromised, nobody is telling the userbase (in my country, these have to be disclosed, but the server does not sit in my country). It's not a "certain browser" issue. Several Supermium users but only one affected. Several Iron users but only one affected. Several Chromium users but only one affected.

The thread title calls it a "redirect". Can still be ISP. I do not use the same ISP as our supervisor (he hosts a website and we do not live in the same 1-of-50 US States, my ISP operates in 15 US States and there are at least 4 US States between us). Again, I revert to this, You and I will *NEVER* know. We have clear indication that MSFN owners, admins, and moderators CAN'T TELL US (citing confidentiality reasons, ADMIRABLE) and CAN'T FIX IT (in my opinion).

Can you run a test? DELETE YOUR ENTIRE PROFILE AND START FROM SCRATCH !!! Is your FIRST visit/search WITHOUT ANY EXTENSTIONS being redirected ON AN ENTIRELY NEW PROFILE ??? Does it take TEN OR MORE visits/searches to get redirected ??? Do you not get redirected until AFTER adding the extensions that you use ???

That's what I suspected (ie, everyone that keeps pointing at User Agent - STOP POINTING AT USER AGENT, that is not the problem). Seems to me that you need to contact your ISP and see what they have to say. Seems to me that it only affects certain countries (maybe we need a list of those countries?). But don't expect any answers from MSFN owners, admins, or moderators.