NotHereToPlayGames

Do you have additional details on the googleapis and gstatic modifications?

Okay, I decided to put my money where my mouth is. I think you'll agree this to be proof. We know that UA-CH did not exist in Chrome 80 and we know that UA-CH is enabled by default in Chrome 92. html5test.com gives that "imitates" in the results for Chrome 80 and for Chrome 92 - has nothing to do with UA-CH (which I "think" was your claim, not sure? I can't follow your posts at times). And as my geometry teacher used to say -- Q. E. D.

Actually, since you requested I run a test, I'll submit a test in return. We know that UA-CH started with Chromium 84 (some sites report 85 but I see several that cite 84, so worst case we will call it 84). So here is a test for you - run that html5test (which I personally think is flawed, but I don't have much experience with it) using Chromium/Chrome EIGHTY and fake a Firefox user agent. My hunch (I welcome you to screencap proof that I am wrong) is that running that "test" using Chrome 80 and faking a Firefox user agent will give you that "imitates" result - so it has nothing to do with UA-CH, would you agree?

You seem to be confused on just what UA-CH does (or I am?) The agenda of UA-CH is to BYPASS the user agent completely. Detection based on UA-CH would detect your true browser REGARDLESS of whether you were faking a user agent or not. The html5 detected the faked user agent, so it has nothing to do with UA-CH, the "imitates" can be due to a hundred different things, various "combinations" that throw out the word "imitates" when Condition A plus Condition B is met. The whole agenda has very little to do with "privacy" or "telemetry" - though I would classify you as a bit more "extremist/alarmist" than I would classify myself. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." (A Seinfeld reference.) The purpose is for the website to know if you are on a MOBILE device versus a DESKTOP and to send the proper code for a proper rendering. If they succeed in rolling out this platform (way too early, not even sure if it exists "in the wild yet", just 'on paper') then those of us that FAKE user agent strings to FORCE a "heavy" web site to send us code based on less "hungry" javascript, as an example, will no longer be able to do that. The website will DETECT our TRUE "fingerprint" regardless of what we tried to FAKE by using the very old and everybody-knows-it "trick" of sending a FALSE user agent string. That's my understanding thus far at least. I'd be more than happy to read any respectable website link you may have that may indicate otherwise. The html5 test doesn't show me what I need to see as "proof". A "real" test that proves UA-CH is in fact "functioning and enabled" would be a test that reports "You faked your user agent to tell me you are Firefox on Linux, but I know better, you are really Chrome 86 on Win XP x64". Just catching XP x64 would really prove an advance to me, as almost all of these "test sites" including html5test.com refers to my XP x64 as Windows Server 2003. So that alone tells me that html5test isn't very "advanced".

Also as an FYI -- UA-hints does not function (by default) in 360Chrome v13 build 2206. The User-Agent Client Hints became available with Chromium 84 and was gradually enabled on Chrome Stable as each release became available. In Chromium 84, it was disabled by default and you had to enable it with this flag -- about://flags/#enable-experimental-web-platform-features The feature was not enabled by default until the release of Chromium 89. Reminder - 360Chrome v13 is based on Chromium 86 and is thusly disabled by default. Below are screencap's from a test site that demonstrates if you have this feature enabled or not (I pulled the enabled via Chrome 92 from Win 7 VM). The key section to look at is the "Subsequent Request" being empty after we sent an "Accept-CH" header. And of course I shouldn't have to remind everyone that you are protected even further by only allowing white-listed javascript.

As a quick status update, I am targeting this weekend for a "rebuild #3" upload (v13 build 2206 rebuild 3). I didn't techincally do this one as a modification of "rebuild #2" but rather as a complete redo from the ground up from experiences gained in rebuilding several other build versions (ie, when we were testing on XP x86 SP2). I used portions of @Humming Owl's list of modifications and this has lead to a slightly different path (which may or may not be reverted, undecided at this point). One such change completely removes the Avatar context menu. There's two routes we can take with the Avatar context menu. That menu is mainly used for logging into a 360 Account (which we intentionally remove all functionality thereof). @Humming Owl's method to remove the 360 Account login function also completely removes this Avatar context menu, not just the 360 Account aspects but the entire context menu. For now, I went with this route also - it is "easiest" (by far) and I never really use the Avatar context menu. But there is an alternative route - we could keep the Avatar context menu, remove only the actual 360 Account aspects, and build that Avatar context menu into anything we want (links to History, Downloads, JavaScript console, Task Manager, link to MSFN 360Chrome general discussion thread, View page source, various chrome URLs, the list is endless). I am actually leaning towards turning that Avatar context menu into a list of chrome URLs -- for reference - https://www.ghacks.net/2012/09/04/list-of-chrome-urls-and-their-purpose/

Agreed! I boycott Facebook but people that are ADDICTED to it "don't care" that Facebook knows more about them then their own MOTHER knows about them. I'm aware of the history and Firefox is doing something similar, don't know the how's and the where's but I assure you that it is being done "somewhere" - and not just by "user agent". Because, and I personally don't understand it, but it's because "they" (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Edge, Opera - they ALL do it!) think that "market share statistics" are somehow "important" or somehow actually "mean something". It's a meaningless statistic - there's the ol' adage ---- There are three types of lies -- lies, d@mn lies, and statistics. WTFC about a web brower's "market share"? Does it "really" mean anything? I have EIGHT comptuers and every one of them has 360Chrome v13 build 2206 and MyPay v27.9.4 on them, some have Basilisk, some have NM 27, some have NM 28. Am I being "bean-counted" EIGHT times for 360Chrome and MyPal? Even if 360Chrome gets used 90% of the time and MyPal only gets used 10% of the time? Like I say, "they" do it because "they" have the false impression that "market share" not only "means something", but that it is so vastly important that they should spend millions trying to gauge it and collect first-run data, user-agent data, et cetera, and place "The Great Supercomputer Deep Thought" (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) in a dark corner for 7.5 million years as it runs numbers on that data and find that Ultimate Answer -- 42... But I digress...

This personally irritates me! I posted a First Run connections log for Basilisk several posts up. I counted eleven First Run connections in Basilisk yet they have gone completely unnoticed for "decades" yet one solitary gstatic connection in 360Chrome has the World in a Frenzy? Explain that, please! I'm showing Basilisk to make repeated connections with Cloudfare - why no frenzy? I'm showng Basilisk to make several connections with googleusercontent - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with deploy.static.akamaitechnologies - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with MCI Communications Services in Ashburn, VA - why no frenzy? I'm showing Basilisk to make several connections with Microsoft Corporation at One Microsoft Way in Richmond, WA - why no frenzy? What am I missing here? A blind trust for anything Firefox? Again, I wholly and fully support taking measures to make our own browsing experience free of telemetry! I've got nothing to "hide" and there is a balance between returning to driving a horse-drawn buggy and just allowing telemetry to go unchecked. But I have to admit, I really don't think that it is too much to ask for the folks that have such a great concern for 360Chrome making one solitary gstatic connection to have an equal concern for what their Firefox browsers have been logging for DECADES but has gone "unchecked" or "blindly trusted".

I have wondered the same regarding your posts, so "who knows". Oh well, to each there own. But, and I am paraphrasing, I don't recall ever saying "are you an id1ot, why would anyone enable that feature, do you even know what it is" and you directed that paraphrase to me twice (at least it seemed), so yeah, you rub me the wrong way at times! But moving on... I did place you on "ignore" for a while, but I'll go ahead and give you another try as you were "positive" with a few 360Chrome suggestions a few posts ago, so "onward and upward". I was searching an hour or so ago trying to gauge Netherlands privacy concerns relative to the privacy concerns (ie, the very reason we remove telemetry and monitor "connections" in 360Chrome) of us on this side of the pond. The US definitely lags behind based on several global news sources, it looks like your country protects you more than you give them credit for, who knows. The EU has privacy czars and the GDPR and CCPA and I even saw Netherlands is in the midsts of a lawsuit against Facebook that the courts handed Facebook a loss as far as their attempts to drop the case. So you disabled a phone's GPS with a soldering iron but you don't see yourself as paranoic on any level, just merely precautionary? Again, oh well, to each there own. Constant usage of the word "gugle" strikes me as a bit odd, but you are from a country trying to knock Facebook down a few pegs - I wholly and fully support any endeavor of that nature. I can remember our government breaking up "Ma Bell" into five (?) "Baby Bells" when I was growing up - but we (the US) has enabled Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon to grow to gigantuous sizes. I also remember the day when everybody would call Microsoft "M$" like your use of "gugle". Nothing really happened with Microsoft aside from "browser choice" or whatever they called it and Windows operating systems no longer putting a big blue "E" with a halo on the desktop. I wholly and fully support any knockdown of Google, Facebook, et cetera. But I still think we can call them "Google". But to each there own (which, I admit, is often times easier said than done).

I'm all for countermeasures for our own peace of mind regarding our own levels of paranoia. But there is also a point where it reaches the level of a psychiatric disorder. I don't own a phone but that's because I use VoIP over my internet connection. But let's use a phone as an example - going the extents to that of being afraid that Google is reading your MSFN posts? I have to ask, do you own a phone with GPS capabilities? You see where I'm going? I don't really have a desire to sit in a buggy and stare at a horses butt while traveling from A to B and don't really want to milk a cow and churn my own butter while the wife rakes laundry over one of those curragated thingamajiggies down at the creek and the daughter spins cotton into thread for next year's overalls. I hope you post from a coffee shop or public library if your level of paranoia is as extreme as you make it sound. But jokes and sarcasm aside, yes, I get it, countermeasures gallore... To an extent...

I use uMatrix to block third-party fonts, including emojis. I don't think it blocks them as well as MyPal / New Moon / FF-based font settings though.

I already disable web-gl and wasm out of the gate. Disabling WebRTC requires adding an extension which I don't install prior to public upload. UA-hints is a new one, I'll have to look into that one, thanks. Also not familiar with "no first run" flag, will look into that also, another thanks.

Basilisk First Run connections (July 3rd download, I don't download every week), no pages visited, no extensions installed, just extracted and launched for the very first time and these are all of the connections it made (with my hosts file re-enabled) -- I see a TON of "crap" in this list and frankly trust 360Chrome over and above Basilisk if we are to go by "first run connections". Let's keep it all in perspective, I don't think I've seen any "reports" to Roytam about these "connections". TcpLogView -- Event Time Event Type Local Address Remote Address Remote Host Name Local Port Remote Port Process ID Process Name Process Path Process User Remote IP Country 7/20/2021 5:14:18 PM Open 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 localhost 1026 1025 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:18 PM Open 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 localhost 1025 1026 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:30 PM Open 10.0.2.15 40.89.244.232 1028 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:30 PM Open 10.0.2.15 104.22.12.159 1027 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:04 PM Close 10.0.2.15 40.89.244.232 1028 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 72.21.91.29 1031 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 35.244.181.201 201.181.244.35.bc.googleusercontent.com 1030 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 184.26.42.74 a184-26-42-74.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com 1032 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:25 PM Close 10.0.2.15 104.22.12.159 1027 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:26 PM Close 10.0.2.15 72.21.91.29 1031 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:26 PM Close 10.0.2.15 184.26.42.74 a184-26-42-74.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com 1032 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:18:31 PM Close 10.0.2.15 35.244.181.201 201.181.244.35.bc.googleusercontent.com 1030 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:20:59 PM Open 10.0.2.15 104.21.48.45 1033 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator

ps1 - no hosts file for above logs, fully updated Win XP x86 SP3 (by fully updated, I *exclude* "pos" updates). ps2 - a "gstatic" connection for FIRST RUN ONLY is normal and to be expected on Chrome/Chromium-based browsers. Can it be nixed? Not really sure, to be honest, it doesn't "overly" concern me as a first-run ONLY connection. From what I have read on it, it's more of an ATTEMPT for Google to somehow track Market Share but that the method is flawed and useless, but my readings on it are extremely limited. But enough so that at least for now, that one-time first-run-only connection is "harmless". So what if Google has "data" that an open source WebKit v86 engine was installed at such-and-such IP Address *seventy times* since September 2020.

For starters, I had to edit Preferences to open an empty page on startup - never been a big fan of the browser opening ANYTHING on startup. Launched for First Run, closed, launched a 2nd time, closed, launched a 3rd time, copied logs below. TcpLogView -- Event Time Event Type Local Address Remote Address Remote Host Name Local Port Remote Port Process ID Process Name Process Path Process User Remote IP Country 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM Open 10.0.2.15 142.250.191.131 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 1064 443 1480 360chrome.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\360ChromePortable v11\Chrome\Application\360chrome.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 4:39:25 PM Close 10.0.2.15 142.250.191.131 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 1064 443 1480 360chrome.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\360ChromePortable v11\Chrome\Application\360chrome.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator NetworkTrafficView -- Ethernet Type IP Protocol Source Address Destination Address Source Port Destination Port Service Name Status Packets Count Total Packets Size Total Data Size Data Speed Maximum Data Speed Average Packet Size Maximum Packet Size First Packet Time Last Packet Time Duration Latency Process ID Process Filename TCP Ack TCP Push TCP Reset TCP Syn TCP Fin TCP SACK SACK Permitted Maximum Segment Size TCP Window Size TCP Window Scale TTL Source Country Destination Country IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1063 1900 4 820 708 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:09 PM 00:00:02.347 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 IPv4 ICMP 10.0.2.2 10.0.2.15 12 672 432 56.0 56 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:53 PM 00:00:46.355 0 0 0 0 0 255 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 50913 53 domain 1 61 33 61.0 61 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 128 IPv4 UDP 208.67.220.220 10.0.2.15 53 50913 domain 1 77 49 77.0 77 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 64 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 55622 53 domain 1 74 46 74.0 74 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 248 TcpLogView.exe 0 0 0 0 0 128 IPv4 UDP 208.67.220.220 10.0.2.15 53 55622 domain 1 112 84 112.0 112 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM 00:00:00.000 248 TcpLogView.exe 0 0 0 0 0 64 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1065 1900 4 820 708 0.2 KiB/Sec 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:35 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:39 PM 00:00:03.155 1400 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1066 1900 4 820 708 0.2 KiB/Sec 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:50 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:53 PM 00:00:03.499 540 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 DNSQuerySniffer -- Host Name Port Number Query ID Request Type Request Time Response Time Duration Response Code Records Count A CNAME AAAA NS MX SOA PTR SRV TEXT Source Address Destination Address IP Country www.gstatic.com 50913 3263 A 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.709 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.733 23 ms Ok 1 142.250.191.131 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 131.191.250.142.in-addr.arpa 55622 8502 PTR 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.968 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM.007 39 ms Ok 1 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 Not familiar with Wireshark and don't see a way to copy and paste and don't really have the time to learn it at the moment. Pastes above aren't formatted very well, but taking screencaps, uploading to Dropbox, then embedding a shared link on the forum just takes too d@mn long at the moment.

Will report back this evening. A source for WireShark versions (including .paf portables) -- https://2.na.dl.wireshark.org/win32/all-versions/

I personally have not tried 11 yet. In order of personal preference, others may have a different order -- XP x64 Professional XP x86 Professional Win 7 Enterprise x86 Win 10 LTSB x86 Win 10 LTSB x64 But if you ask 50 different people, you are likely to get 50 different answers.

BINGO !!!... Aside from that, I'll stay out of this one, lol.

I've never been into games. The closeset I ever got into the gaming craze was when the local Dairy Queen had a tabletop Ms. Pac-Man.

It does get tricky. Most people's reasoning and logical analysis is based on what is called "linear thinking". ie, they don't think and reason in terms of integrals and differentials (ie, calculus), they think in terms of a "line", whether that line is linear or curved, monomial or polynomial, it is still a "line". It gets even worse when most people think that they can "multi-task" when in reality, at the cerebral cortex level, our brain simply does not multi-task - period. Training your left and right hand to perform tasks in different planes (ie, patting head and rubbing belly) is nowhere near the true definition of "multi-tasking". Having 20 tabs open in a web browser also doesn't mean that you are multi-tasking, it's actually more in-tune with Attention Deficit Disorder and bouncing around like a squirrel as far as the cerebral cortex is concerned. Computers, on the other hand, if you have a multi-core processor, then that computer can truly multi-task. Whereas a single-core computer can not - that single-core computer has Attention Deficit Disorder and is bouncing around like a squirrel. That's also why single-core computers had to have faster clock speeds and massive cooling fans (and I've seen some that even had their own "radiator" and was water-cooled - no anti-freeze required, waka waka waka). A multi-core processor can perform the same amount of tasks with a lower clock speed and a power supply that doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on (yeah, exaggerating for effect - but I remember the days when turning the TV on dimmed the living room light slightly or the days when you turned the computer's CRT on and it sounded like it just inhaled all the air in the room). And if you do a lot of benchmark tests as opposed to just relying on your "gut" and "placebo effect", then you may have noticed that most benchmark programs will include a single core score and a multi core score - the two reveal very different aspects of your computer. And the same goes for your web browser in general. But anyway, what was the question again, I think I may be suffering a small bout of ADD... 1 + 1 = 10...

@XPerceniol - you cited in one of the 360Chrome threads that multi-process (several .exe's in the Windows Task Manager) is one of the things that you do not like about Chrome-based browsers. So I must admit, I'm a bit confused that you are attempting to bring multi-process to FF-based browsers when that support by its developers never matured anywhere near the level of Chrome development (from my understanding).

Hmm, interesting route and you had me thinking of doing the same for my rebuild. I think for now I am going to keep iframse.srx and skin.srx untouched but may end up going this route down the road. I kind of like how if you "missed" something in en_skin.srx, the GUI has a "fallback" and pulls from iframe.srx and skin.srx.

No. That build 1106 was only a test for YouTube stability on XP x86 SP2. That build has been abandoned.

Can you tell me if this was @Humming Owl's v9, v11, or v12?

I haven't been following the NM thread as closely as I used to. Where did you hear that NM 27 will be up'd from 38 to 41?