NotHereToPlayGames

I would add that OFTEN TIMES, those placebo-effect changes also make the browser LESS compatible than it already was. ie, we know that SOME TIMES the reason a captcha can't be passed is BECAUSE OF these types of placebo-effect changes. I know I should LINK to one of those discussions where one of these had to be REVERTED in order to pass a captcha, I just don't have the energy to hunt one down at the moment.

AGREED !!!

Agreed, same here. Nobody "should" have any of those entries. They would have had to manually add them.

You're still kind of missing the point. You are claiming the installer is only such-and-such a size and that size DOES NOT MATCH another installer for the same version ??? ??? ??? Okay, let's take a step back - I have a TEST for you to run. Uninstall whatever you installed. DELETE any TEMPORARY files that it may have downloaded without you knowing it downloaded. Run that "installer" again BUT WITH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION DISABLED. Does it still install? Or does it throw a message that you have to connect to the internet before it can proceed? I have a hunch that you will have to connect to the internet, that your file is fetching files during the installation. I've never ran CIS. I can TOMORROW if all of this is really THAT important to you. I can't tell at this point how much of this is just you wanting to get the "last word" or not. Sorry, that's kind of what it looks like, that you have to have the "last word". "To each their own."

Plus, I did SCREENCAP the FILE SIZES of the two downloads! One was 8 MB, the other was 221 MB. For the FIREWALL package. That said, I have seen where installer file sizes are GIGANTIC only because they support a HUNDRED different languages instead of just one. Regardless, I'm kind of done here. It's just a bunch of "talking in circles" at this point.

I have zero history with the CIS package. For all I know, the only reason it is that "small" is because it DOWNLOADS the rest when you install it. Regardless, I was not talking about CIS and any future comments regarding CIS will have to be IGNORED on my end. I don't like talking to "walls", lol.

I can agree to that screencap. I did not recognize the first one. Regardless, it's still the *CIS Premium* and that is NOT what we were looking at, we were looking at Comodo FIREWALL. *NOT* CIS. Why do you keep overlooking that? We were looking at FIREWALL and NOT the "internet security" program, it's an entirely different BEAST.

I can visit an XP VM tomorrow if nobody else stops by to add anything. A lot of Supermium users (on XP) probably never bother to look at the event viewer because everything is working so there's nothing to "debug". Technically, I always kept the event viewer DISABLED unless I was debugging something. I never kept it running and using processor power when I didn't really "need" it running.

I kind of have to suspect that *any* extension causes this on your setup. That it has nothing to do with what extension. Install *any* extension, even just as a temporary test, and you still have this error. I'm not getting it on my test Supermium, but it's also in a Win10 VM and not in XP. Hopefully another XP users stops by and looks at their event viewer logs, maybe they have this issue too but just never noticed it yet.

Great one! I use that too! Does the below file exist in your profile? Can you open it in something like Notepad++?

I'm going by the dates listed here - https://www.afterdawn.com/software/security/firewalls/comodo_personal_firewall.cfm#all_versions Your screencap appears to me to only tell you the date that you downloaded it. It's also "cispremium", I wasn't talking about "cis" (internet security), I was only talking about the FIREWALL download. I myself never download a "bundle" (antivirus PLUS firewall) if I'm only looking for a FIREWALL, regardless if there is an "option" to only install firewall. I don't want the antivirus INCLUDED in the installer if I'm not going to install it. "To each there own", topic has reached it's CONCLUSION. "Over and out." edit: note to self, this is the LAST d.draker reference I am "allowing", it's to the IGNORE LIST the next time that OBSESSION / INFATUATION surfaces (ie, "rears its ugly head", zero value-add at this stage, zero... "to each their own"...)

Maybe I should add, I only use MANUAL firewall rules. (edit: and PARENT-PROCESS based rules! never trusted anything dumbed-down for the grandma and grandpa user) I would *NEVER* trust *ANY* firewall that only allows "this is a web browser, allow all traffic typical of a web browser" type of simplistic and dumbed-down "rules".

Although, to be fully honest, I'm only taking your word for it on account of NOT CARING one way or the other. I run OLD software ALL THE TIME. Generally speaking, folks that tout "wouldn't advise to the worst enemy" is on account of it being OLD. Not saying that is you, per se. But I send this right back atcha - C'MON, one is from 2007, the other is from 2014. Ain't a whole lot of "improvement" going on those years! All just "marketing" tactics and a SH#TLOAD of BLOAT !!! An installer size that went from 8 MB to a gigantic massive 221 MB !!! Sure, don't go for the v2.4 and it's 8 MB installer. But C'MON, something in the middle has to be beter than an installer that GIGANTIC !!! That is HUGE ENORMOUS GIGANTIC !!! A firewall does not need to be that HUGE.

I'll go ahead and take your word on it. I used to use it in XP to *prevent* "illegal" software from sending out telemetry. So it did work for what I used it for (details of which is not for the MSFN audience, lol). It worked GREAT for my use. But that was nearly TWO DECADES ago, I kind of forget "exactly" when. I no longer do that kind of "work" and so I technically NO LONGER USE any software firewall (I do use hardware firewall solutions).

I'm not finding it. You do not want "internet security", you only want "firewall". This is the closest I'm finding - https://www.afterdawn.com/software/security/firewalls/comodo_personal_firewall.cfm/v2_4_17_183 In-process of installing Vista. Will attempt to install this next.

Can you provide the link of where you obtained Comodo 2.4? Because I am 100% postive that I have ran it in XP and in 7. I kind of find it hard to believe that it will not run in Vista. I'm creating a Vista VM as we speak. Then will install Comodo and screencap if needed.

Are you tying our hands with an unwritten request that any suggestion we make has to be "modern"? I personally suggest Comodo Firewall 2.4.18.184. What a firewall "does" hasn't changed over the years, one that was "great" 20yrs ago is still great "today" ON OLDER OS'S. No, I would not suggest Comodo Firewall 2.4.18.184 on Win10 or Win11. But would submit that it still holds its own EXTREMELY well. But for XP, Vista, and 7 - H#LL YEAH!

No! Not really. But I do not today and have never in the past received those types of results. Nobody "searches" for MSFN to visit MSFN if they don't already have it bookmarked. They search for a specific topic and "find" posts here at MSFN. When I do searches for things that SHOULD find MSFN, they DO find MSFN. In the end though, NOBODY CARES ANYMORE, this thread is LITERALLY nothing more than you and me. NOBODY ELSE.

I kind of have to wonder if that even matters !!! I mean, I didn't become a member here because I *searched for MSFN*. I just did three different searches for things that I would assume MSFN to be a *RESULT* of that search. And MSFN *was indeed* FOUND in that type of search.

Being a work laptop, you very likely have broken several company rules-of-use on that laptop just by installing software on it that your IT Department did not authorize.

I use a userscript where all images are TINY but then I mouse-drag-and-stretch if I want to enlarge. You have your issue-fixes, I have mine.

You're growing more and more impatient / passive-aggressive / whatever-you-wanna-call-it. We weren't expecting you until May 31st

Reminds me of when mom used to take us to a place called a "video store". For MOVIES. And nobody in their right mind would ever rent a "video game".

Maybe it is best to say it this way - we have CLEAR EVIDENCE that there *IS* a "Man In The Middle" vulnerability risk. So it boils down to this - do you TRUST that "Man In The Middle"? If so, keep logging in, your email is required. edit: my email hasn't been spammed. BUT... I've also never been hit with the DNS "redirect".