NotHereToPlayGames

Even if I try to FORCE a request, Ungoogled Chromium WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO. No DNS record, no traffic at the router, no "broadcast". I guess we can assume that was NOT THE CASE back in 2016.

Cannot replicate. Here, Ungoogled v122 redirects https://mcdonalds.fi to https://www.mcdonalds.fi with no certficate error on the www.mcdonalds.fi and no blocked attempted request. I could probably replicate if I installed a version of Ungoogled from 2016, but WHY, you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless.

That doesn't say much. We both hate hate hate Firefox. It took Firefox *25 years* to fix a "tooltip bug". Only 22 years if you count from the SECOND bug report years after the first was never fixed. Despite having "fixes" posted DOZENS of times per year during those 25 years. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40431444 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/22-year-old-firefox-tooltip-bug-fixed-in-a-few-lines-offering-hope-to-us-all/ My Ungoogled Chromium v122 is not even ONE YEAR OLD, it too was last patched/fixed/upgrade in 2024. I "can" use NEWER. I'm just NOT INTERESTED in anything newer. That day will be forced upon me one of these days.

You are vulnerable to bugs discovered in 2016. You are *dense*. They cannot be knocked into. This is 2025. Not 2016. Your next post is going to cite the sixties?

You have me confused with somebody else. I do not use youtu-dot-be. I do use YOUTUBE.com. The Tampermonkey scripts that I sometimes post "do". That doesn't mean that I've ever visited a dot-be-wanna-be. I use YOUTUBE.com.

That PORTION of the patch may not have changed, along with my tt -> xx, BUT the way that the BROWSER renders HAS CHANGED. Nobody that uses Ungoogled has ever cited that notification/warning that you reference from a 2016 bug report. I have *NEVER* seen that notification/warning. **NEVER** So yeah, a 2016 citing is IRRELEVANT. If you have this notification/warning using anything *newer* than Chrome/Chromium v109 or so, please screencap it! I cannot visit the .fi link from here at work. I'll go ahead and visit AT HOME, but I would bet your-never-wrong to I'm-never-wrong that a MODERN browser does not have the same BUG that was reported in 2016!

Perhaps. But the *excuse* is that they lack "security features" such as TPM 2.0. You can blame "money" all you like. I'll sit back and equally blame "security hype".

And for what it is worth, THANK YOU, "that" is the type of discussion/proof/documentation that will serve us all well !!! But can you find one that is more recent than from 2016 ?

I have never seen that notification! Never! But I also did not use Ungoogled Chromium in 2016 when that issue was reported. I cannot verify the .fi link from here at work. I would be sent to HR for clicking such a link. Technically, I have NO USE for any web site that isn't a .com, .net. .edu, .org, or .gov. There's probably an exception or two, though none come to mind.

I'm done here. I have confidence in our readers being SMART ENOUGH to see right through the little "conflict" you are trying to create here. You clearly have no clue just WHY the Ungoogled Team uses .qjz9zk. There is no "broadcasting". Moving on... Your Lemmings will be by shortly to REP FARM your "likes". Congratulations!

For starters, the "rep" on this web site is B*LLSH*T. You know it! I know it! You yourself are amongst the KIDS on this site that REP FARM. You know it! I know it! Everybody else on MSFN knows it! Second, the ch40m1um.qjz9zk is DODGING THE CLAIM YOU MADE !!! Everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY is aware of the .qjz9zk. You missed one, for the record, there is also .9oo91e.qjz9zk. THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM. Your claim was that these are BROADCASTED. THEY ARE NOT BROADCASTED !!! THEY CANNOT BE BROADCASTED! You can create a web site with a .com, or a .net. or a .gov, or a .edu. YOU CANNOT CREATE A .qjz9zk - THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF UNGOOGLED USING THAT "CODE". The "patches" are PUBLIC DOMAIN. Anybody can "ungoogle" a Chrome/Chromium fork. Supermium doesn't create the patches, they use what UNGOOGLED shares PUBLICLY. ps - I don't use the CAPS LOCK, I hold a SHIFT key down and type with a SHIFT key held down, NO CAPS LOCK WAS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST.

To be honest, I kinda of DON'T CARE (but am interested in the PROOF of your CLAIM for the sake of YOUR 6.7k Reputation). I wholly and fully believe that *ALL* browsers can be *identified*. Call them fingerprints, call them user agents, call them client hints, IF YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET, YOU LEAVE AN "ID" BEHIND. No If's, And's, or But's.

You'd have to put your money where your mouth is with that claim. Post the link/discussion. Otherwise, don't believe you, don't care, and won't believe future advice from you either without documentation/links to back up such claims. Let's be honest, if *I* posted such a claim, you'd have yourself and a couple Lemmings jumping all over me. So yeah, I think it is fair to ask for proof/link in this case. If you cannot find proof of such a claim, then I don't mind informing the Ungoogled Team so they too can learn the name "D.Draker" and the others that will come by to post the "like". I'll sit on the sidelines... Ball is in your court...

Even the TITLE of your post is ALL CAPS. That's just INSANE.

Listen, I like to use CAPS for emphasis as much as the next guy. Bold, underline, italics - they can all be USEFUL. But CAPS for the ENTIRE POST ??? Your post should be DELETED for no other reason than it being in ALL CAPS.

Agreed. But you also cannot send data to "hxxps" and "hxxps" is not a "redirection". There are no loopback "clock cycles" being consumed.

This link is dead. I use uBlock 1.52.2 and have a couple profiles (such as at work) that run 1.59.0. I do notice that 1.52.2 "seems to be" a little faster, but I've not technically performed any quantifiable measurements outside of "never believe gut feeling placebo effects" that suggests 1.52.2 to be a little faster.

I think that was supposed to read: <font: sarcasm;>hate is childish; if it aint newest then it sucks ...</font>

That yellow exclamation mark was introduced in version 1.48.0. I myself tend to be "impatient" at times when it comes to computers, so I myself can not trust versions prior to 1.48.0. Not because they don't work, they do, but because I tend to start clicking bookmarks or whatnot before uBO is actually "ready". So I actually like the yellow exclamation mark as a reminder that I can wait half a second before opening a bookmark.

I've uploaded a copy to https://filebin.net/0ag5oiyrvgas6fqo/Proxomitron%20-%20MSFN%20-%2001-26-2022.zip The Filebin link will expire in 6 days. I no longer have a Dropbox account and Filebin popped up when searching for "no account file hosting".

I can confirm that 0.0.0.0 "works" for breaking the Google Analytics telemetry for the extension that this was discussed. I don't really have a way to "test" if this is indeed "faster" or "better" or not. But I can confirm that it "works". Personally, I still prefer the tt -> xx method. Because I like to look at my modifications six months or a year from now and with that method, my mod stands out like a sore thumb. The 0.0.0.0 would require "notes" on the side or a re-visit to the original code to see just what I mod'd out. I'm personally not convinced that hxxp is any slower than ht tps://0.0.0.0 because the browser does not know what to "do" with hxxp so the instruction is SKIPPED. The browser DOES know what to "do" with ht tps://0.0.0.0. (edit: and it appears that an "old" browser versus a "modern" browser will react DIFFERENTLY when it encounters 0.0.0.0) It would be one thing if I replaced a real DOMAIN with a will-not-resolve-at-the-DNS-level DOMAIN as that would obviously consume clock cycles and DNS lookup time. But the browser (and OS) has no clue what to "do" with hxxp://you-are-here.com and it is irrelevant if "you-are-here.com" is a real DOMAIN or not, it doesn't even get sent to the server for a DNS lookup. It doesn't even get passed through the OS hosts file for the OS to decide if it is "redirected" or not. The REDIRECTION may indeed be FASTER, but my mod doesn't require the OS to perform any host-based redirect.

On second thought, the CRASH if that UNINSTALL URL is "tampered with" was discussed in this very thread and you even replied to it, so I did already tell you WHY that URL cannot be "tampered with" but that PREFIXING solves the auto-visit BS.

Not to be misread. I wholly and fully support the author's great extension (I've tried the alternatives and greatly disprove of them, to each their own) and he is wholly and fully "allowed" to code-in "telemetric phone-home shenanigans". I am not a supporter of "time bomb" shenanigans, but do "understand" why MANY authors employ them. I equally wholly and fully support the END USER acquiring the know-how to PREVENT said "telemetric phone-home shenanigans". I personally hate hate HATE even "auto-update" BS as that is just a cleverly veiled "phone home shenanigan".

You missed that part of the conversation. That was discussed "before" the topic was relocated to this thread, so it's understandable that it was missed. Tampermonkey's coding is very "tricky" in places. MANY extensions employ TRICKS in an ATTEMPT to keep people from editing out the parts they don't like. That does not stop me! I find a way to edit out the BS! In the case of the UNINSTALL auto-visit BS to the D#MN HOME PAGE, if you remove the URL entirely, or even replace parts of the URL, then the GUI will not load and CRASHES. But if you PREFIX with "disabled-" as my mod does, THEN THE UNINSTALL AUTO-VISIT BS IS BROKEN, no new tab opens! But yeah, sure, a CPU cycle or two was "wasted". Sure, there are other ways to defuse the d#mn auto-visit BS upon uninstall, but my prefix-fix is a COMMON method that works in MANY extensions that code-in "you tampered with my code, I'm going to CRASH now". Again, try your advice if you don't believe mine. THIS is what happens if you "edit it out". The Tampermonkey author WANTS YOU TO VISIT HIS HOME PAGE. Without modifying an otherwise great extension, the home page is visited immediately after install, 14 days later, upon various edits resulting in a crash where those edits would not crash other extensions, upon uninstalling, within useless portions of the GUI that I also mod-out, perhaps even other areas that my useage has not ran across (if I do, rest assured, they too will be mod'd out!), et cetera. This author really does add "countless" attempts for his HOME PAGE to be auto-visited! Not on my system! We've also seen just what that HOME PAGE does to the chrome.exe process-count in Supermium.

No, no, no, no, no. Again for those in the back row - No, no, no, no, no! Why? Because then the browser opens a new tab when you UNINSTALL the extension! The whole POINT of that MOD is for NO TAB TO BE LAUNCHED when the extension is UNINSTALLED! Especially no PHONE-HOME tab to the HOME PAGE. But why replace the phone-home HOME PAGE URL with a EMPTY TAB URL ??? Try your advice! It launches an empty tab (with a certificate error). Again, the entire PURPOSE of that MODIFICATION is so that I can uninstall the extension WITHOUT ANY TAB AUTO-LAUNCHING. None, naughta, zero, zilch, null, zewo, nula, nol, cero! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0 Please, please, please - listen to my raving wisdom.