NotHereToPlayGames

Ewe wihl fined thatt misspelleeng theengs wihl getz muche fasstir reeplize. waka waka waka

I wouldn't go that far. Or are you just trying to poke ribs of "others who did"? I actually delete/prevent-creation of almost all files discussed in the past. But that setup is also *NOT* a "one size fits all" and that's where the problem was in the past. What works for you and I will not work for "others who did". And vice versa.

It's Bulgarian - but that shouldn't matter! I use v4.3 intentionally despite newest being v4.5.

I bite my tongue.

Does not effect me. I do not use "asset lists". In fact, I'm quite emphatic about not trusting such "lists", be it uMatrix, nMatrix, or uBlock.

You and D.Draker have the same view. If you want my view (and since you're asking questions, I have to assume that you do), so here goes. Are you familiar with a guy named "Binary Outcast"? He has (had?) a web browser project called "Borealis Navigator". Another project called "Interlink" is also originally his. He never made it to an official public release (at least not for Borealis Navigator, unsure on Interlink). BEFORE he could ever make it to an official public release, a guy named "roytam1" started publicly releasing the same exact project that went by the name of "BNavigator". Look at that name and I'll ask the same question - coincidence? Of course it isn't! This was when "branding issues" and "trademarks" and you name it were "debated" both here and on other "official" forums. Enter this thread! The same EXACT thing just happened! Somebody did not go public with a web browser and somebody else did! An open source browser. NEITHER one of these "somebodies" OWN the original Chrome/Chromium. Mod's to open source software does not make them closed source, this is against the terms of agreement of the original open source code that was mod'd. It could be easily argued that Binary Outcast's "toes were stepped on" when roytam1 started releasing BNavigator. And the same just happened here. But open source is open source. Else roytam1 would no longer be distributing BNavigator. That's my two pennies. Put them in a bank and they'll eventually earn interest. edit - this is just my "view", my "opinion". and opinions are like butts, everybody has one, that doesn't mean everybody wants to hear them. waka waka waka

No! Two of us were NOT infected and the guy that WAS infected has been infected in the past. So whatever the guy did in the past, he did it again and it has NOTHING to do with the modified Chrome that was shared herein.

Does uBlock at its default settings block the "fetch" from mega.co.nz? If so, that's why your mega.nz is not working. And are you comparing apples to apples - uBlock in 360Chrome and uBlock in Ungoogled 104? I don't know what uMatrix's "fetch" is even called in uBlock.

You could try this -- https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/downloads-overwrite-alrea/lddjgfpjnifpeondafidennlcfagekbp

I thought ALL web browsers did the auto-rename when you download the same file over and over. Even older versions of Firefox do this auto-rename. But not if you right-click and select save-as. Chromium v105 on Win10 - Ungoogled Chromium v96 on Win10 - Catsxp v110 on Win10 - Serpent v52 on Win10 -

i only tried one of the v111's. I didn't get around to trying v112.

I have them. And no, I am not infected with "TJPROJMAIN.EXE". I do not run any anti-virus. I only tried them in Win10 just for the curiousity of a new browser. I don't think you got "TJPROJMAIN.EXE" from this thread. (2/23/23)

Totally understand! It's one of the reasons I am not a fan of the "Tri-Five Chevy" (1955, 1956, and 1957). 1955 = 1,775,952 produced 1956 = 1,623,376 produced 1957 = 1,555,316 produced Compare that to Studebaker for 1955 when only 116,333 were produced or 1957 when only 63,101 were produced. But yeah, a bit OT, lol.

I'm kinda mixed, to be honest. I was accustomed to the great deal of flexibility with NM27 and then NM28. I only ran one of them! I only upgraded from NM27 to NM28 when one of my banking sites couldn't me made to work, despite all the flexibility. It was ONLY when NM28 could no longer be made to work on my banking sites that I migrated to Chromium-based. I continue to monitor the Firefox Forks and my fingers are crossed that I may someday return.

I guess what that tells me is that if people were as adamant about "security" as they claim to be, then they would NOT BE VISITING this website because it scores an "F" ??? www.bing.com scores a "D" swisscows.com scores a "D" www.google.com scores a "C" duckduckgo.com scores an "A"

NOBODY cares! And I do mean **NOBODY** Is it a "god complex" that hass ewe corecttinng evveryyboddy's speellinng missteaks ???

Following up on this. My error console does show this Content Security Policy error when downloading Mypal.68.13 which is distributed via mega.nz. Perhaps mega.nz WORKS for my 360Chorme v13.5 build 1030 and not for C...dile is that I block access to cdnjs.cloudflare.com that mega.nz attempts to connect to. I also have to allow "fetch" in uMatrix for mega.co.nz. At any rate, mega.nz DOES WORK even though that Content Security Policy is being displayed in the error console.

My only suggestion - do not "live for the like". If you seek something to research today, do a Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo/Swisscows search for "self worth tied to like button", rephrase it different ways, let the results lead you to other searches. Then after reading at least 30 articles, both pro and con to the "like button", then ask yourself if you should be worried about mina or legacyfan "liking" posts or not. Live well, my friend.

Said it before, will say it again - never allow javascript by default! This alone will prevent 99.9999999% of "security vulnerabilities". No, I don't know the "exact" percentage, but 9 nine's has to be pretty close!

re: cookie steeling This is one of the biggest reasons I have never understood why people want to "save" tabs and even logins from one browsing session to the next. And even complain that a browser isn't "portable" if their logins can't be carried between different computers. There are people here at MSFN that would "complain" that they can't close 360Chrome with a HUNDRED PLUS tabs open and wonder why their next "session-restore" would be SLOW because they WANT their next launch to open those HUNDRED PLUS tabs !!! Never made one lick of sense to me! I clear all cookies, tabs, cache, et cetera with every exit! And I never log into any bank account without that being the ONLY thing I do during that browsing session.

I'm not sure if it is possible nowadays. "Theoretically" I suppose anything is possible. It used to be possible back in the IE8 days. But IE8 was "part of" XP. So I would think that ChromiumOS users are the one's that have to be wary, not XP users. But not my area of expertise, so "who knows".

Agreed. I prefer .zip versions also.

But what you also have to remember (at least to the best of my knowledge but I also don't have an interest to hunt it down) is that browsers such as NM27, NM28, St52, St55, et cetera, are never checked for security vulnerabilities and reported to the public like Chrome/Chromium/Edge/Firefox vulnerabilities are.

I bank on an 18yr old XP machine with 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030. I don't have to stretch to do it. Security holes aren't really holes for the most part, just a bunch of hype and propaganda. Being "net savvy" and knowing what you are doing is the key to being "secure", not relying on your browser to "safeguard" you from clicking bad links. Thinking 360Chrome isn't safe enough to do banking on is like thinking XP isn't safe enough to run without anti-virus slowing your system to a crawl. We will always have "two camps". One camp will run anti-virus and feel secure. The other camp will be "net savvy" and feel secure. And BOTH, when done properly, will NEVER GET HIT WITH MALWARE. Here at MSFN, we have members running Win98 and using "vulnerable" web browsers on that Win98 - but they never get hit with malware. We have people on XP, on ME, on 2000, on 7, on Vista, on 8, on 8.1, on 10, on 11, on Ubuntu, on Fedora, on Peppermint, on ReactOS - they're all doing fine without running Chrome 112 or Firefox 110 or Edge 110 or whatever the "cutting edge" is at the moment. This is something we each have to decide for ourselves. What works for me may not work for you. What works for you definitely will not work for me.

Here's something I would be interested in, if anyone has any factual data on the matter. I prescribe to the paradigm that OLDER operating systems are more "secure" DESPITE their security holes. I prescribe to the paradigm that "malware authors" don't waste their time targeting 1% of the population but rather instead spend their time targeting 99% of the population (ie, Win10 and Win11). So here's my interest - does malware hit Vista, 7, or XP most frequently? My theory is that XP is hit the least. I'm talking specific malware distributed by simply visiting a web site (ie, you caught it via your WEB BROWSER being "old" vs "new"), not those installed when a user installs a program they downloaded from an untrustworthy source.