Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,104

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Posts posted by NotHereToPlayGames

    Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by NotHereToPlayGames

    2 hours ago, Anbima said:

    But it must be due to the certificate.
    I have two sites with the same encryption and one works and the other does not.

    It's not the "encryption" you are failing, it is the "algorithm" that you are failing.

    WinXP can not, under any circumstance, be made compatible with Elliptic Curve key algorithm certificates.  Period.

    The E1 cert is your issue, each and every web site that has been cited in this thread that is not reported as "secure" in the web browser's address bar is using E1.

    You will NEVER get this E1 certificate to show up as "secure" in XP.

    image.thumb.png.6297f6978c5cd4385d8105b686f2c986.png

    0

    Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    Guys, sorry for the late arrival.

    There is a lot of true info in these recent posts, there is also a lot of misleading half-truths.

    I shall attempt to clear the air, but sometimes that is impossible here at MSFN when people doing the discussing already have preconceived notions (which may result in this being my ONLY reply to these recent posts).

    I speak solely towards my 360Chrome v13.5.1030 Redux as that is the only version I still use.  My other versions "should" be the same in this regard.

     

    First, yes, it is "true" that iTrusChina Co.,Ltd. is LISTED in the Trusted Certificates Store - that is not the same thing as saying it is being "used" by 360Chrome.

    The USE of this certificate is "supposed to be" BROKEN in my builds.

    Now then, with that said, how do we PROVE that the USE of this cert is BROKEN?

    You must must must first locate a web site that USES that cert!

    https://valid-isrgrootx2.letsencrypt.org/ does NOT use that cert - it uses "E1".

    More importantly, it uses "ECDHE_ECDSA" as the key exchange mechanism - this is not compatible with WinXP and cannot be made compatible with WinXP.

    My 360Chrome is "secure" for this E1 cert using ECDHE_ECDSA because this is on WINDOWS 10 and not XP!

    image.png.9d9f06cad411d4eb3c9c806a7d81b9fe.png

    3

    Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by NotHereToPlayGames

    Those are just one example.  I also get a "WIX" ad if I try to rely on uBO only.  The "WIX" ad is just a picture, not a video, with a "Skip Ad" button in the corner.

    uBO will show this PICTURE and sit there, and sit there, and sit there, for WAY too long.  Eventually it will disappear on its own, without clicking the "Skip Ad", but just that it sits there, and sits there, and sits there means uBO didn't "block" it.

     

    Which AdBlock did you try?  There are TONS of them it seems and I've only had success with TWO of them.

    One auto-updates each and every time you launch your browser - strong dislike for my needs.
    That was this one  --  https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adblock-plus-free-ad-bloc/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb

    This is the one that I am using and it is doing everything I need it to do, but I technically run this side-by-side uBO.
    Here  --  https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adblock-%E2%80%94-best-ad-blocker/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

    I use one-and-only-one filter list in "AdBlock -- best ad blocker":
    image.png.85c1fe1e21ab008f7fdcc1f9adc8d328.png

     

    I use only five lists in uBO.  Most (if not all, I forget now) are actually "default" uBO lists, they are listed in the "Custom" section because of the way I build my profile.
    image.png.a20b97bb892486296872ed9f29175c1f.png

    0

    Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    Newest PM28, newest uBO Legacy mod, updated default lists, added the two lists mentioned in our other OT discussion.

    This video show ads for me in UXP PM28 whereas my Chromium setup does not.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-lUGSJ9kiE

     

    Maybe you don't call this an "ad", maybe technically it isn't, but it is an "annoyance" and my Chromium setup blocks this "pos" -

    image.thumb.png.edc05bcb45c438181865867a41e8afc6.png

     

    Play the video all the way through, without fast-forwarding, these are most definitely ads and my Chromium setup blocks them (but requires two ad blockers working side-by-side) -

    image.thumb.png.aa6545ff2e21c42150f848cfc05d4ea0.png

    0

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

    I can't notice any serious impact

    I definitely do here!

    I've reverted to using "AdBlock — best ad blocker" running ONE list in conjuction with uBO running only FIVE lists.

    The "AdBlock — best ad blocker" apparently blocks YouTube ads differently because uBO will SHOW the ad for a split second, if not more, before skipping the ad.

    uBO will prevent the ad from PLAYING but it still SHOWS the ad.

    At least for Chromium-based.

    0

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

    When it comes to uBO's default lists, most YouTube filtering is taken care of from uBlock filters – Ads

    Thanks.  I definitely need to experiment.  I build my profile here at home and use my fully portable profile also at work.  I only use YouTube at work for "background noise".

    Work computer will let me run my portable browser, but it somehow blocks installing extensions directly, so I install them at home and zip-and-send the whole browser.

    0

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    I'm going to keep my current setup.

    I only need *ONE* list to block YouTube ads but it is not a uBO list, it's ONE list inside "AdBlock - best ad blocker".

    It defeats the purpose if I need to extend my FIVE uBO lists to TWENTY-SOME lists.

    My five uBO + one "AdBlock - best ad blocker" seems just fine for my needs.

    If your list would have worked for uBO to block YouTube ads by using six or seven lists instead of five but one extension instead of two, that would have been a step in the right direction.

    But jumping my 5 lists up to 20-some, nope, I'll pass.  But thanks again for the suggested TWO lists, but no, adding those two lists did not prevent the need for my one extra extension.

    0

    Thorium

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    I was on 'bare metal' XP until only just about a month and a half or so ago.

    I gave up on XP.  I felt like a dog chasing a flea on the tip of my tail, constantly running in circles and never catching that flea.

    The last straw for me was my checking account web site would no longer run on XP + 360Chrome.

    1

    Thorium

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    I have ran (in VM only) some Thorium releases in the past.  LONG before Supermium was ever a thing!

    I did find Thorium to be STABLE.  Even with only 2GB RAM allocated to the VM.  Like it or not, Supermium is simply NOT THERE  --  *yet*

    I personally don't mind, in the least, viewing Thorium EXACTLY as we did 360Chrome "in the days of forgotten lore".

    Nobody trusted 360Chrome in the beginning either.  It was MSFN Members that evolved it into something we were comfortable with.

    Logging its every connection, hex editing .dll's, customizing GUI, et cetera.

    Nothing wrong, in the least, with doing the same to Thorium...  And Supermium...

    Show a screen cap of Thorium making a questionable connection.

    The "throw granny from the cliffs" scare tactic approach isn't doing anybody any good.

    4
×
×
  • Create New...