Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,759

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames

  1. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  2. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  3. NotHereToPlayGames
    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).
  4. NotHereToPlayGames
    Very very very VERY patient.
  5. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  6. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  7. NotHereToPlayGames
    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...
  8. NotHereToPlayGames
    Unsure if this is it or not, but I INTENTIONALLY DISABLE "SAFE BROWSING" 'bullcrap'.
  9. NotHereToPlayGames
    No issues here.
  10. NotHereToPlayGames
    What web site?
  11. NotHereToPlayGames
    Disable QUIC in chrome://flags/
  12. NotHereToPlayGames
    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!
  13. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  14. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  15. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  16. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  17. NotHereToPlayGames
    Can you share the web site URL?
  18. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  19. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  20. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  21. NotHereToPlayGames
    That's the version/source I tried also. Will not launch in a Win10 x64 VM. Did not track down "why". May attempt again later in the week. Show us a screencap of its about:networking page. That will reveal any embedded telemetry. My hunch is that if Waterfox Classic has embedded telemetry, than so does the non-classic version!
  22. NotHereToPlayGames
    I personally hate hate hate this "thought pattern". Sorry, I just hate it! The very definition of 0-day is all about REACTION TIME. If your surfing habits land on pages that could catch a 0-day and you don't already have other DEFENSES, THEN YOU ARE AT RISK OF CATCHING IT BEFORE FIREFOX RELEASES THE PATCH THAT YOU FALSELY SEE AS YOUR SAVING GRACE! Firefox does not fix a 0-day within SECONDS of its discovery !!! It takes DAYS at the bare minimum! How many web sites did you visit in the span of those **DAYS**?
  23. NotHereToPlayGames
    I could not get Waterfox to launch. I could get Waterfox Classic to launch and I'm NOT liking what I see there. Regarding 0-day - DOES NOT CONCERN ME! "Hype and Propaganda" in my book. Blacklisting javascript and only whitelisting on a dozen cites you visit regularly TYPICALLY IS ENOUGH TO PREVENT ANY-AND-ALL ZERO-DAY BS!
  24. NotHereToPlayGames
  25. NotHereToPlayGames
    And don't forget the about:networking link (somebody posted that in this thread, forget who, that's a new and very useful tool to keep in your quiver).
×
×
  • Create New...