NotHereToPlayGames

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_2 added to first post.

I double-checked and the English Developer Tools was not saved in Alpha_1. Found the fix and will default to English in Alpha_2. Almost completed with a large portion of the broken English corrections, will have an uploaded Alpha_2 later this evening.

My v13.5 developer tools should have already been in English.

With which skin?

Thanks

Could you refresh my memory on which two connections? Noted.

Added new download link to first post. Alpha release for version 13.5.1030. This release defaults to the original Chinese Author's language pack for English - it is still very "broken" as far as English goes – there will be English errors and there will still be some Chinese. The skin defaults to "XP Luna Blue" (I still plan on creating a "dark theme" one of these days). The Developer Tools has also been set to English. None of the telemetry features have been coded out yet (but the files that most of them rely on have been removed).

AGREED !!! But our conclusions are as opposite as an eraser is to a pencil.

It's gotta be mine, I'm the only public release that uses the "loader". But I haven't been able to duplicate the claimed DNS connection. Maybe you ( @Dixel ) could be of better assistance and see if you see this claimed DNS connection also? I am not seeing this in yours, mine, or Humming Owl's when I use the "loader" with all three of them. I disable Window's built-in DNS Client service, not sure if other services should also be disabled. I have not been able to duplicate the claimed DNS connection. Been trying to for about two hours now.

Running CrowdInspect right now. Cool program! Thanks. Only have it showing UDP and had it and 360Chrome v12 r 8 ungoogled running for roughly 15 minutes or so. Browsed to several sites while watching traffic, not seeing any UDP traffic, none, naughta, zilch. Maybe this is an ungoogled versus regular version difference? I personally only use the ungoogled version. I do have a "lsass.exe" showing two instances of listening on UDP on port 4500 and port 500 for All IPv4 but these are being shown without 360Chrome even open. "lsass.exe" also shows a listening on TCP on port 1025 for All IPv4 but again even with 360Chrome closed. A quick Google shows these as normal but I didn't spend a lot of time researching it as I was looking for 360Chrome connections, not OS connections.

Agreed. From clean cache, Page 1 took 9.08 seconds to load and only 2.5 MB transferred via 106 requests. Reloaded Page 1 without clearing the cache and it took 10.59 seconds to load, still showed same 2.5 MB transferred but now with 81 requests. Mypal 27.9.4 loaded it in 3.87 seconds and only 36 requests and 1.8 MB transferred.

Same here, all portable. What is your full list of startup flags? I have no inbound here. Can you post a screencap? Can it be isolated to any background tab that is opened? I do have these added to my HOSTS file, maybe this is why I don't get any of these inbound (generally speaking, I didn't think an inbound was possible until AFTER you sent something outbound, I could be mistaken) -- # 360Chrome 0.0.0.0 browser.360.cn 0.0.0.0 cloud.browser.360.cn 0.0.0.0 dd.browser.360.cn 0.0.0.0 qurl.f.360.cn 0.0.0.0 chrome.360.cn 0.0.0.0 ext.chrome.360.cn 0.0.0.0 u.qurl.f.360.cn 0.0.0.0 puv.tt.browser.360.cn 0.0.0.0 p.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p0.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p1.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p2.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p3.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p4.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p5.ssl.qhimg.com 0.0.0.0 p.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p0.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p1.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p2.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p3.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p4.ssl.qhmsg.com 0.0.0.0 p5.ssl.qhmsg.com

Be cautious. Most other Chrome-based browsers add to your firewall rules for you. This one doesn't do that because we don't use any "installer". I do think what you guys are seeing is present in several other web browsers. I love the vigilance!

Yeah, this test tends to fluctuate a point or two if you rerun it a few times.

You should be seeing this "behavior" in Chrome, in Firefox, and in Edge. Safari is the only browser that disables it by default. I think what you guys are seeing is QUIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC

All Chrome-based browsers do that, not sure since when, part of "Chromecast". All Firefox-based browsers do that since v36 but I think this is disabled via browser.casting.enabled=false, unsure.

Not sweeping under the rug. I believe I requested the file in question to be scanned by TWENTY anti-virus programs and that if all TWENTY flagged it, then we have a problem. But only one and my sky isn't falling. I used to use a "portable wrapper" called JauntePE, unsure if MSFN folks are familiar with it, almost everything flagged it as a "suspicious" because it "hooks" onto .exe files. Same goes for several systray utilities I've used over the years to minimize programs to the systray instead of to the task bar.

I get 369/15 in 12 M. But my 12 r 8 tops it for me ==

We really don't need the anti-Russian rhetoric, folks. This is an international community. Yes, Russia is in the "Top 10" of hackers around the globe - so is China, so is the USA, so is Turkey, so is Poland, so is Brazil, so is India, so is Germany, blah blah blah...

Page 1? Or Page 55? Both load equally fast for me in 360Chrome v12 (NoScript 11.2.3 enabled) and in Mypal 27.9.4 (NoScript 5.1.9 disabled, render-lag if enabled). If you are using NoScript then that can cause some very serious render-lags in FF-based browsers here at MSFN et alia. But I seem to recall that "newer" NoScript extensions will cause the same render-lag in Chrome-based browsers here at MSFN et alia.

I personally like -- Kraken 1.1 -- https://mozilla.github.io/krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/index.html SunSpider 1.0.2 -- https://webkit.org/perf/sunspider/sunspider.html Speedometer 2.0 -- https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ (there is also a Speedometer 1.0 but while the resulting score may be different, the actual "order" of results in comparing several browsers is always the same) BrowserAudit -- https://browseraudit.com/ Basemark Web 3.0 -- https://web.basemark.com/ PassMark AppTimer -- https://www.passmark.com/products/apptimer/

No worries. I like "test" and "benchmark" sites but in the end it is usability that trumps test/benchmark "results". There are some "benchmarks" out there that when you see the "results" you simply have to roll on the floor in laughter. A FF-based browser which is quick and snappy and renders all 500 top-500 sites with ease will score 20,000 but an equally quick and snappy Chrome-based browser which again renders all 500 top-500 sites with ease will score 40,000 on the same exact OS and hardware. "Yeah, right!"...

I'm not sure what the objective here is. Track down "test" sites whose sole purpose is to "crash" a web browser? These will always exist "in theory" and really not worth the effort to prevent (in my view). If a top-500 web site like YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, et cetera causes crashes, then that is something worth looking into. But some "test" site whose sole existence is to create hypotheticals that simply do not exist "in the real world" ???

It's like a car alarm. You hear them ALL THE TIME. But the car is NEVER being broken into. Just some fat-finger owner that hit the wrong button on the keyless entry or some dog p!ssed on the tire and the sensitivity was way too high. Scan it with twenty different "tools" and if all twenty flagged, then I'd be concerned.