NotHereToPlayGames

Um, neither? I have never used (nor have any plans to use) this so-called "Lite" version. So perhaps I should have started a new thread (no plans for that either)? And I'm not sure what "classic" means. I'm using 1.59.0 (since abandoning AdNauseam recently). There are probably newer versions, I intentionally stay a version or two behind. Ignore "blocked since install" - I see it as a form of "history telemetry" and my version "resets" at each and every browser exit. Though no, I have not monitored if this "data" is sent 'outbound'.

More importantly, that image has not been modified since 2016! You really really really should show us "proof" that you are being served a DIFFERENT image than this. This topic keeps hinting at this "Member" button being NEW - again, the header and even file name reveals that it is from 2016. I pulled directly from j7n's profile page.

Technically, the .png was created from an anti-aliased font. Select one pixel, you get (255,255,255). Select another pixel, you get (237,237,237). Select another pixel, you get (228,228,228). You can get any range of those numbers just by selecting different pixels within the .png button that says "Member".

I've noticed an odd anomoly in my uBO list sizes. My lists *ARE* current, the yellow triangle is related to *NOT* enabling "auto-update" (a feature I despise, lol). Being a "portable" browser, I archive regularly as a .zip of the entire folder, profile and all. The archive size is different by as much as 16 MB with the ONLY difference being the "order" in which the uBO lists are updated. While the number of network filters + cosmetic filters is the same, each individual list of "used out of" will change depending on which ORDER the lists are MANUALLY updated. My SMALLEST archive size is if I update the LARGER "used out of" lists first and manually update ONE AT A TIME from larger to smaller as numbered below. The LARGEST archive size is if I update the SMALLER lists first and manually update ONE AT A TIME from smaller to larger opposite as numbered below. I guess my THEORY is that if we want to optimize list parsing, then we should update LARGE to SMALL and not let auto-update just update in a random order.

Disregard. It is working. Silly me forgot that I had a startup switch that disabled components. I never use widevine, but do want the "option" to be able to. Thanks. But I only use portable non-system-integrated browsers.

Didn't work for me. But I only tried in Ungoogled v122. I don't really have a "use" for widevine, but I did think that v122 was "capable" of everything 'modern'. Looks like that's not the case as far as widevine.

They do not work! Placebo Effect. I believe in measureable results and there is NO BEFORE-AND-AFTER difference. None! The only thing that works is disabling javascript (obviously), blocking ads (obviously), and those types of things that even an eight-year-old can do.

I have never used a paging file. I have never had any stability issues with not using one. My XP only runs 12 processes (the screencap shows 14 to include one from launching Task Manager and two for launching System Properties that dropped to one by time I screencap'd).

Very very very VERY patient.

Supermium "shouldn't" have its own certificates. All Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, 360Chrome, Kafan, Supermium, Thorium, Brave, Vivaldi, Ungoogled Chromium, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon) are supposed to use the OPERATING SYSTEM'S certificates. This issue is likely Supermium-only, but it still begs the question as to why only on your computer? No other Supermium-user has chimed in to confirm your issues. This seems so far, until somebody else chimes in, that this is your computer and yours only.

This is something on your computer. I have tried for HOURS to replicate your issues, mixing and matching various settings, et cetera. My attempts have been in vain - I cannot replicate your certificate authority issues. Have you ever "manually updated" your certificates? If so, you may need to reinstall your XP to get it back to the way it was "engineered" to be. Just a theory. Until somebody comes along and shows a screencap of their Supermium NOT having the same issues as you but on a system WITH "manually updated" (or manually revoked, for as far as that goes) certificates.

no you won't... you'll find that linux FAILS to live up to the hype surrounding it... "been there, done that"... the *ONLY* solution is to TEACH YOURSELF how to remove telemetry! be it removing it from Firefox, 360Chrome, WinXP, or Win10 - *YOU* have to take control and LEARN HOW to remove the stuff you don't like... THERE IS NO OTHER WAY...

Unsure if this is it or not, but I INTENTIONALLY DISABLE "SAFE BROWSING" 'bullcrap'.

No issues here.

What web site?

Disable QUIC in chrome://flags/

If you have this enabled, I would strongly encourage DISABLING it! "To each their own", of course. Feel free to read up on it, "secure" DNS is basically a HOAX!

Are you using "so-called" Secure DNS, aka DNS over HTTPS, aka DoH? If so, "I advise against" but others are just as likely to advocate the contrary.

The screencap indicates he is using ProxHTTPSProxy. That "intervenes" with certificate chain so the issue could be ProxHTTPSProxy. But I would assume that ProxHTTPSProxy is being used for "all browsers" and not just Supermium.

You'd have to post those types of questions here -- https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/discussions Unless Supermium becomes truly "ungoogled", I basically have no use for it. I remain optimistic towards its development. Though I do wish that an older version of Chrome was "matured" *before* the project started "chasing" more recent versions.

I cannot replicate your errors. Supermium v124 and 360Chrome both show secure connection for ScienceDaily. All I can add is that I have never, and I really do mean *NEVER* "updated my root certificates". There are several threads here at MSFN that are dedicated to "updating root certificates". I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY OF THEM! My XP root certificates are AS MICROSOFT INTENDED THEM, I have not "intervened" in any way, shape, or form and my root certificates WORK AS INTENDED. I can only state the FACTS as they pertain to my XP - I have never manually updated my root certificates and I cannot replicate your certificate authority errors. Unsure how relevant that FACT is, but it is a fact! My root certificates are as OFFICIAL XP intends them to be. I do not even use/install POSReady2009. Again, unsure if relevant, just a FACT as it pertains to my XP.

Can you share the web site URL?

What does Certificate Signature Algorithm say for SHA? I'd have to review, but I don't think XP can do anything higher than SHA-256.

Click your padlock and view the Details tab of the certificate. Scroll down to Key ALGORITHM and click. View the Field Value and my guess is that you are seeing ELLIPTIC CURVE for each and every web site that shows this certificate authority error on WinXP.

I agree, works for me. Bear in mind that these "other forks" are even further behind as far as "zero-day". Official Firefox may discover a zero-day on Monday and have it patched by Wednesday (that 3-day turn may be too optimistic!), but do any of us really think that the forks are patched as quickly? I do not base by protection level on the assumption that a zero-day will be fixed "quickly". My protective umbrella *WILL* protect me from that zero-day for WEEKS, if not MONTHS - as I suspect YOURS will also.