NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
We do all need to kinda know our own balance. I personally have never in my entire life installed any "certificates" (well, can't really say "never", I used to create my own certificate for a program called Proxomitron). But at the OS level, if it didn't come from an official Microsoft "KB", then it isn't on my computer! Mileage varies on this one, but I do NOT install POS updates. My balance is along the same lines of @Dixel - he did NOT just install a set of certificates, he extracted them, peaked inside, and knew what portion to install and what portion not to install. NOTHING gets "installed" on MY computer without me extracting them, peaking inside, making a few modifications, and creating my own self-extracting archive to copy files and create the registry keys I want and drop the "bundled" registry keys that the "author" tried to sneak past me, et cetera. I haven't "installed" any software on my computers via the developer's "installer" in somewhere between 15 and 20 years. But at the same time, "that" isn't for everyone. Being self-aware enough to control your mouse-clicks - that IS for everyone. Knowing which web sites are respectable and trustworthy and safe to download from - that IS for everyone. Caveat emptor! What I am trying to drive home is this - YOU are responsible for YOUR security, that "green padlock" should not be your warm-and-fuzzy!
-
I'll concede that "meaningless" is not the best way to "word" my POV, so I shall expand a bit. My POV remains - SSL "security" is MEANINGLESS and should NOT be "relied upon" to indicate your level of "secureness". Fake websites know how to "appear" secure -- https://www.semrush.com/blog/https-a-modern-false-sense-of-security/ YOU the USER must learn how to be "net savvy". If you click on a link that says the website needs to "verify your identity" and you do so because you see a "green padlock" - SHAME ON YOU. If you clicked a link from an unknown sender in an email and the link takes you to a "green padlock" that says to click here to "unsubscribe" - SHAME ON YOU. If a web browser popup claims they detected a virus on your computer, click here to run a full scan and you see a "green padlock" - SHAME ON YOU. If you can't spot the difference between your browser's "auto-update" dialog and a web page with a "green padlock" saying your brower needs updated - SHAME ON YOU. Et cetera...
-
For those wanting to test, it took me quite a while to actually find something out there in the wild that does NOT use HTTPS (in fact, I couldn't find anything for sites that I regularly visit, I just never paid any attention to it). So I found this instead -- https://whynohttps.com/
-
ps - regarding HTTPS Everywhere (which again I don't use but nor do I have the need to visit https instead of http, why do I need a "secure" connection to check the weather or read the news?) <excerpt from Wikipedia> Other criticisms are that users may be misled to believe that if HTTPS Everywhere does not switch a site to HTTPS, it is because it does not have an HTTPS version, while it could be that the site manager has not submitted an HTTPS ruleset to the EFF, and that because the extension sends information about the sites the user visits to the SSL Observatory, this could be used to track the user. </excerpt>
-
That's the way the internet is SUPPOSED to work. Unless you use something like "HTTPS Everywhere" extension -- https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/https-everywhere/gcbommkclmclpchllfjekcdonpmejbdp?hl=en To me that kinda seems pointless, but "to each their own".
-
Mypal is giving me the same thing -- Ecosia is fine but browserleaks has a red exclamation mark. I personally feel that cert warnings are MEANINGLESS. UNLESS you see it on your bank account site!
-
Ecosia shows up fine for me but I get the same as you for browserleaks --
-
I should further point out that I see some forums where some ESET (antivirus and firewall product) users have blocked that "connection" and it fully disabled their Vivaldi, Opera, and Chrome from connecting to the internet. As I mentioned above, it is not an "external" connection. I find it a rolling-on-the-floor-in-laughter read on one of the Vivaldi sites. Several people name-calling other folks and tellilng them to put their tinfoil hat back in the closet. Thanks, that was a very hilarious way to spend my lunch break
-
For you Mozilla-based readers, see "Network Detection" section here -- https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections
-
Oh, also found this -- https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=246181
-
That's technically not an "external" address. That connection isn't really a connection, it is a network discovery and Mozilla-based browser perform a "network discovery" also (I'll provide a screencap if you don't believe me). If they concern you, go to chrome://flags, search for media router, and disable the pertinent flag - I'm showing three, please report your findings on which of the three prevents this INTERNAL connection.
-
Oh, I know what you did, you calculated to "today". Microsoft's CVE 2020-0601 security bulletin is ANCIENT, it didn't come out "today". I'm showing CVE 2020-0601 to be announced Jan 14, 2020 (568 days ago... 1 year 6 months 21 days ago... 18 months 21 days ago...)
-
Either your calculator is broken or your calendar is broken, I'll let you decide. I did "round up", which is fairly standard - but I am unable to reverse-engineer whatever math you used
-
The videos on that page plays for me in these 360Chrome versions -- 11, 12, and 13. But does not work in these 360Chrome versions -- 8.5, 8.7, and 9.5.
-
Unable to replicate. That video plays for me in v13 build 2206 and in Humming Owl's v13 build 2250.
-
But they would also not have even tested XP as that security bulletin is dated Jan 2020. Six years after XP support ended in 2014. Windows 7 support ended in Jan 2020 so unsure if they would have tested in 7 or not.
-
Not sure if this helps or not -- https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/usb-speederror/ I also found this as far as testing flash drives -- https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-read-and-write-speed-of-usb-flash-drives-with-usbdeview/view-all/
-
Had to search high and low -- but I finally found one that TIES you at 401 passed and 3 warnings -- results 360Chrome v11 build 2140. Got nothing better to do for the day, I'm convinced I will find something that passes all 404 with 0 warnings/criticals/skips.
-
Yep, you win! Though I have come EXTREMELY close and have been able to do so in XP x64 SP2. The closest that I've seen others report is Firefox 52.9.1 ESR on XP x86 SP3 -- which is dated Sept 6, 2018! -- at 399 passed, 5 warnings, 0 critical, and 0 skipped. I've been able to land in the middle TWICE -- 400 passed. One with 4 warnings and 0 skipped. One with 3 warnings and 1 skipped. So Firefox 52.9.1 is dated Sept 6, 2018. The two browsers that I found that will beat Firefox 52.9.1 as far as this browseraudit "test" but can't quite pull out a win over @UCyborg's very new Pale Moon on a very new Win 10 are two different versions of 360Chrome v11. Both versions of the v11 that beat Firefox 52.9.1 [Sept 6, 2018] are based on Chromium 69.0.3497.100 -- which I'm not surprised in the least to have been released on Sept 17, 2018!.
-
Another "best" -- results
-
I have been running all of these in an Incognito/Private window.
-
Here is the absolute best I've seen so far -- results
-
That matches what I get in my 360Chrome v13 build 2206 v3. I would have jumped through the hoops for POS updates if your results were different than mine. I get 20 skipped for Firefox 52.9.1 and you get 0 skipped for Firefox 52.9.1. And that's with us both in the same exact Operating System (XP x86 XP3). I think it proves that what Operating System you run this test in will have a major impact on the results. So I can't in good faith call it a "browser test". I think it's great for me to comapre one browser to the next on my own system. But I think it tells everyone else diddly squat on what my results are versus what their results are. Not to beat the dead horse, but I really have zero faith in this test as far as comparing/contrasting User A with User B. If User A shows a crtical-count and User B does not, the only thing it tells me is that User A is on a different OS than User B and it tells me ZIP about the "browser" that both User A and User B were trying to "compare".
-
@Dave-H - with this test showing numbers all over the place, I'd be curious to know if my v13 build 2206 v3 has zero skips on your setup. Would you be willing to run that test on my v13 build 2206 v3? Here is the download link so you don't have to go tracking it down if you don't already have it -- https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/qyyimm3h58r3963/360Chrome%202206%20rebuild%203%20-%20unran%20-%20MSFN.zip
-
This is from my freshly-installed SP2 with SP3 then installed (note that the IE desktop icon still looks like SP2 but that System Properties does say SP3). Like I say, numbers are all over the place and I don't know a good way to test this test. It's great for comparing different browsers on your own hardware, but I have zero faith on comparing User A results to User B results.