NotHereToPlayGames

I suppose there are a few ways to look at this. The font "fingerprint" is basically a javascript MATHEMATICAL function that detects the available fonts on your system and the MATHEMATICAL OUTPUT is a thirty-two digit number. It's that 32-digit number that is your "fingerprint". Just send a completely RANDOM 32-digit number that has NOTHING TO DO with your actual installed fonts! Note also that each "slot" of the 32-digit number is not limited to 0 thru 9. It also contains HEXADECIMAL digits. So each "slot" can be 0 thru 9 or A thru F. That's sixteen available "digits". That's "only" 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 different available fingerprints. 16^32. You could just as easily not use a RANDOM number but just sequentially send in sequence. 000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001 000000000000000000000000000002 000000000000000000000000000003 000000000000000000000000000004 But DO NOT DO THIS! Why? Because the resulting 32-digit number is then DECYPHERED and I guarantee that a very VERY large number of those 16^32 "fingerprints" result in a DECYPHER ERROR. Look at that this way. A credit card only has SIXTEEN numbers. But there are NOT 10^16 different credit card numbers because the first four digits must correspond to an actual bank and is a FINITE SET.

<OT> Watching "Archive" on YouTube and look what came up. </OT>

Had to google/bing/duck that one. I'm not that old and that hasn't been an "American standard" for a very long time. Precisely! Unfortunately, so do most browsers. Some are easier to "fake" (ie, "blend in with the crowd") than others.

Font fingerprinting has been around for OVER A DECADE. BLOCKING them is NOT the way to INCREASE anonyminity! FONT fingerprinting is one of the EASIEST to CONFUSE. Install a font one day, uninstall it the next. That's TWO fingerprints left behind. An operating system whose fonts NEVER CHANGE stands out like a sore thumb because it only has ONE fingerprint. There are certain fonts that only exist because a user installed LibreOffice or Microsoft Office or runs Vista instead of 10 or 11 or uses Acrobot Reader. The list is endless. If you don't want your fingerprint revealing you run Office 365, then remove the font "Calibri". If you don't want your fingerprint revealing you run Win11, then remove the font "Segoe UI Variable" and "Segoe Fluent Icons". Even an EMOJI font reveals you as you and creates a very unique fingerprint. Unique is NOT good when it comes to a "browser fingerprint". Install Supermium's emoji font and it does not matter if you remove client hints because OS + Browser + that font is a very UNIQUE fingerprint. As for HOW - via JAVASCRIPT. Like almost (but not "all") fingerprinting, YOU BLOCK JAVASCRIPT AND YOU PREVENTED THE FINGERPRINT FROM LANDING ON THE WEB SITE YOU TOUCHED WITH YOUR FINGER.

Not important to me at the moment, but SOMETHING is happening on that TAMPERMONKEY "thanks for installing" HOME PAGE. I shall make note of this and MY APOLOGIES for even RECOMMENDING to install Tampermonkey, I HAD NO IDEA IT OPENED A "thanks for installing" home page that is clearly DOING SOMETHING very VERY suspicious (at least in Supermium on Server 2008 R2).

Supermium is definitely NOT FOR SERVER 2008 R2 !!! Every background chrome.exe should be between 20 to 30 MB or so. Not 120+ per chrome.exe. If you really want to know "why", you would need to ask the creator/author of Supermium at his GitHub page.

I don't have the rebase issue on a fresh install. But every process should not be at 120+ MB either. It's something with the Tampermonkey HOME PAGE. I technically never install ANY extension from the Chrome Web Store. I always download the .crx, MODIFY IT, and use the MODIFIED version. I technically didn't even know Tampermonkey opened a "thanks for installing" web site until 'just now'.

It's the Tampermonkey HOME PAGE that automatically opens right after you install Tampermonkey from the Chrome Web Store (which I generally avoid like the plague!). If you do not KILL THAT HOME PAGE, it keeps opening new chrome.exe's and keeps opening new chrome.exe's, and keeps opening new chrome exe's. I was up to over A HUNDRED befoe I *killed the home page* and *ALL* of the EXTRA chrome.exe's closed with it!

Doesn't really say much. My "one process" of Serpent with only TWO tabs hovers between 650 MB all the way up to about 1.2 GB (at which point it gets "terminated" and started over [UXP browers have HUGE memory leaks!]). I grabbed a copy of Server 2008 SP2 from work. I'll install into a VM and see what Supermium does here.

One variable is that you have four tabs open (one Chrome Web Store, two Tampermonkey, one Greasy Fork). At work at the moment, will check my memory load and chrome processes upon return home. Second variable that is kind of important - how many extensions are you running? Because yeah, 27 chromes is not normal. Something within your profile is causing that. Oh, and I would still verify if your New Moon / Pale Moon also has a rebase issue (xul.dll).

Why Black Males? Sounds racist to me. Can't it be Black Monkeys? Black Molasses? Black Molecules? Black Melanite? Black Mulberries? Black Mamba? Black Moths? Black Mold? Black Mud? Black Meteorites? Black Mirrors? Black Material? I'm going to go with Black Mold and that he/she in in the middle of a bathroom remodel or kitchen sink issue.

Oh, and he has a New Moon / Pale Moon web browser also running. So he is running two web browsers at the same time. How many tabs are open in the New Moon / Pale Moon's Disable ... window? Is the xul.dll for that browser also not properly REBASED? Sure, his Supermium ran out of memory. But his New Moon / Pale Moon / "Black_M..." / file-sharing is using a TON of memory before even launching Supermium (the second to last tab in the toolbar where Task Manager is the highlighted last tab).

I kind of doubt that it is any virus. He's running a sound card (ASIOhost64.exe) at realtime priority. What addresses are those dependencies loaded into? He's watching a "Black_M..." video on a (we have to assume) SERVER OS. He is file-sharing (ApexDC.exe) and who knows how many files are being transferred in the background. He has way too many PROCESSES running. Some times, we bring upon our own pain.

Please provide a download link. I have no interest in scrolling through dozens upon dozens of DRUG articles when trying to hunt for it! Gotta be the STUPIDEST name for a BROWSER if you ask me! Yep, you have a REBASE ISSUE. 1) Download libase from here -- https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1N4r41rCXQKVZ02XzZhhjM5I4a0dXkizS 2) Close Supermium and copy its chrome.dll file into the libase -> Release folder. 3) Open a Command Prompt window from the Release folder and execute the command libase.exe chrome.dll 4) Copy the "rebased" chrome.dll back into your Supermium (renaming original if you wish to keep it, but make sure that this "new" chrome.dll is the one that Supermium now uses). Launch Supermium and compare memory now that you are "rebased".

I personally would have preferred a WARNING of that web site's CONTENT. I just leave it at "ouch"...

I only run Supermium from inside a VirtualBox VM and my just-downloaded Supermium R6 is not displaying a rebase issue. Your memory screencap indicates that yours is having a rebase issue. Oh, I have no clue what Opium 93 is and could not find a download link with it being STUPIDLY named after a DRUG! But I digress... Your profile says that you run Server 2008 R2 but I shall detail instructions from XP. First, we should prove that you are indeed having a rebase issue. Download Process Hacker 2.38 (I'm fairly certain that this is the last version that will run in XP). Setup = https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/processhacker-2.38-setup.exe/download Portable No-Install (I use this one) = https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/processhacker-2.38-bin.zip/download Note from Process Hacker -> Options -> Highlighting that relocated DLLs are highlighted. (I cannot show a screencap, MSFN is throwing an error, don't know why, don't care why.) Right-click on any of the chrome.exe files from within Process Hacker and select Properties. (I cannot show a screencap, MSFN is throwing an error, don't know why, don't care why.) In Process Hacker's Properties dialog, select Modules and see if your chrome.dll (because of its file size) is being HIGHLIGHTED as a RELOCATED DLL (note that mine is NOT highlighted because I do not have a rebase issue). Unsure if you ARE or are NOT, but this will prove one way or the other. You will very likely find some SMALL files that are relocated, those SMALL files do not present a memory-hog issue, it is the LARGE files (such as chrome.dll) that can present memory-hog issues.

You have a REBASE ISSUE. All of those chrome.exe's should be nowhere near 170M each.

But you're not wanting to block the ads ???

Is it possible? YES. Have I tried? No (I don't "do" videos on computers that cannot handle them, lol). Try these. I'd be interested in your findings. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/440872-disable-autoplay https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/8022-disable-audio-video-autoplay I'm sure that there are others (MANY others), those are just the first two from a quick search.

Officially added to my arsenal. This route works hand-in-hand with my other "stuff". The as-an-extension route was not "playing well" with several userstyles where I intentionally use text shadows to hide input field "placeholders" (things like "Search" inside YouTube's search bar). Why hide "placeholders"? Because I employ a routine that automatically enters usernames/passwords but nobody looking over my shoulder (can't prevent at work) can actually "see" the entry.

Thanks! Works like a charm. Not sure what I did wrong my first trial.

Out of curiousity, what does your userscript look like? I tried and it didn't seem to work. I missed something simple, I suspect.

Good! It's a false sense of privacy/security! https://www.avast.com/c-what-is-do-not-track

Here's one that sets font weight minimum to 400. We have font weights of 200 here at MSFN so the change will be noticeable herein. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/32220-set-minimum-font-weight/code

Here's a userscript that does the same thing (applies a text shadow to all text) -- https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/3779-defprefs/code By using a userscript instead of the font enhancer extension, you have more control over the parameters of the text shadow (and one less extension to load).