
NotHereToPlayGames
MemberContent Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
When I visit this link, the JA4 "fingerprint" CHANGES if I refresh the page! That doesn't sound like a "fingerprint" to me. Maybe it's something with Ungoogled Chromium? Also, the middle section derived from Cipher Suites can easily be RANDOMIZED by a startup script that modifies cipher suites at every browser launch. Much Ado About Nothing, in my opinion.
- 24 replies
-
- Cloudflare
- Fingerprint
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
I have NO CLUE what "VK" is. Never heard of it. To me, it sounds like a drunken way of slurring out the word "vodka". I downloaded your mediafire version and it is BY FAR THE BEST that I have seen for a NM28+YouTube. NO EXTENSION OR SCRIPT monkey business and YouTube is at SINGLE-DIGIT CPU. -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
It hasn't been rebased. Rebasing wasn't a thing back when I used NM27 and NM28. Technically, nowadays I am in the camp where ALL of these UXP-Based browsers are nothing but a "trip down memory lane" and NOT TO BE USED FOR "EVERYDAY BROWSING". Yeah, they're "fun" to have around. But so is a fish tank with a piranha. Here is with only the xul.dll rebased. NOT MUCH BETTER in my opinion. I no longer use UXP and no longer use XP - but this is MSFN and we're all supposed to be diehard XP fans for the next thirty years - sorry, NOT ME, "been there, done that". -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
If you are interested in trying an even OLDER version, my PREFERRED version for NM28 dates all the way back to 2018 and it handles YouTube without any extensions taylored to "improve YouTube". -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
How do you expect us to help you if you cannot even tell us the EXACT version we are to compare with ??? -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Can you show us the exact version? Or did you mention it and I missed it? -
Like somebody on XP or Vista perhaps? Or, more seriously, somebody that will have twenty lines of defense but disables ten of them so that their "social media" will function.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
I hover around 46% with latest NM28 and my POS computer. Not great. But this is literally "out-of-the-box", fresh download, brand new profile. Adding VORAPIS (I use the TurboLauncher script via Greasemonkey) is likely the best it gets for NM28 and real POS computers. -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
<sarcasm font>Is this your swan song?</sarcasm font> I did try your beloved VORAPIS V3 and there are some pros to it. But there are also some cons. I used it for about an hour and ditched it, reverting to my own "tools". There is no "one size fits all" approach. Sorry, there just isn't. Here is what I'm seeing in NM28 "out-of-the-box". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyhFQmSaf0g No issues here. I'll try in a POS computer instead. -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
I'm showing as still not fixed. I will need to revert again to July 31, 2023 version of Serpent 52. "Newer" versions are broken when it comes to Restore Session. -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Looks like this was the first post regarding Restore Session. -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
As first reported here, I will now see if the latest version finally works for filling in the table for Restore Session. -
Your ONE TRACK MIND is missing the BIGGER PICTURE. I'm not reducing this conversation to "variations", YOU ARE. I could CARE LESS about the "variations" tag - IT IS BUT ONE OUT OF THOUSANDS OF DATA POINTS. The bottom line is YOU HAVE AN INTERNET FINGERPRINT. PERIOD. YOU want to act like your "variations" tag is proof that you do not have an internet fingerprint. THAT is your delusion. Again, I could CARE LESS about "variations" tag. YOU serve this fingerprinting discussion ZERO WORTH by always always always reducing it to "variations" alone. I'm done. BRING ASTROSKIPPER TO THE CONVERSATION IF YOU REALLY WISH TO CONTINUE. YOU DO LISTEN TO HIM.
-
Here, let's break it down this way. Belgium population as of today per Worldometer is 11,744,248. But only 8.6 million of those 11.7 million are internet users per Wikipedia. 3.6 million are fixed broadband, 3.5 million are mobile broadband. And you know that many will overlap and be both. The 3.6 million fixed broadband are not limited to only these three, but the three biggest providers in Belgium are Orange Belgium, Telenet, and VOO. So just by IP Address alone, those 3.6 million are already narrowed down to 1.2 million. And we haven't even touched user agent or "variations" or OS or browser. Just how many people in Belgium do you think have even heard of SUPERMIUM? I guarantee you that using SUPERMIUM has that 1.2 million narrowed down to LESS THAN A HUNDRED! In all of Belgium! WAY LESS! There are only 2.3k "stars" on the GitHub "insights" page. You really need to make sure that SUPERMIUM "looks like" CHROME and not like SUPERMIUM if you are worried about "fingerprints". An EMPTY "variations" field STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB!
-
I agree. But I think you are still missing a small factoid. A *million* people can install Ungoogled, any version of Ungoogled, on any OS capable of running Ungoogled, and they all share that same exact Unique ID. So "unique" may indeed imply "one number", but it does NOT imply "one person out of billions on the globe".
-
You're still in denial of the bigger picture. Each and everytime you launch your browser and visit a website, there are THOUSANDS of data points being communicated. A user agent is only one data point out of THOUSANDS. Light mode versus dark mode is only one data point out of THOUSANDS. Whether the browser windows is maximized or not is only one data point out of THOUSANDS. Your IP address... Your ISP... Your OS... Each is but one data point out of THOUSANDS. GeoLocation... Canvas... What codecs you can render... Each is but one data point out of THOUSANDS. Ask your mom! A forensics expert only needs 6 or 7 data points and they have you FINGERPRINTED. If you really think that you are blocking all of the THOUSANDS of data points and somehow have manged to be "off the grid" when ONLINE, you are living a DELUSION!
-
That is EASY. I prefer the unique ID number. The goal is to not jump through a hoop that narrows you down. By just ALLOWING the unique ID number of the tiny Ungoogled or the tiny Supermium userbase is one thing. To jump through a hoop by modifying Ungoogled or Supermium to an EMPTY STRING, you just put yourself into a VERY SMALL FRACTIONAL SUBSET of that alreay tiny userbase. I THINK YOU ARE FINALLY CATCHING ON! The goal is to BLEND IN WITH THE CROWD, not jump through hoops to create an EMPTY STRING that makes you STAND OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.
-
Perhaps we are misunderstanding the intent here. If we are talking about Cloudflare FAILING, then you have to click the Verify you are human checkbox and ONLY THEN does 360Chrome get you to sourceforge.net because the human-check PASSES when you CLICK THE CHECKBOX. If we are talking about NOT LANDING on the Cloudflare human-test page at all, then that is something entirely different. Also, note that you have a RED PADLOCK for the https in the address bar. In Win10, the padlock is GREEN and the certificate is ELLIPTIC CURVE, an algorithm that XP cannot natively do. Though I believe hoops can be jumped through to add this ability (I myself will not be entertaining the how-to).
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
-
My only suggestion is to TAKE A STEP BACK. Right now, you are only hearing what you WANT to hear. BY ALL MEANS, INVITE ASTROSKIPPER TO THE CONVERSATION, YOU AT LEAST LISTEN TO HIM, EVEN WHEN HE SAYS THE SAME EXACT THING I SAID. Again, take a step back. After you've done that, then consider this simple truth - an EMPTY variation and a ONE-NUMBER variation ARE THE SAME EXACT THING. A full fingerprint can NOT be established by an EMPTY OR A ONE-NUMBER variation. The forenseics expert NEEDS MORE DOTS. Now then, YOU ARE CORRECT that if the variations contains MULTIPLE NUMBERS, then that variation ALONE can be enough "dots" for that forensics expert. But empty, "null", or ONE NUMBER are all the same thing to that forensics expert - "inconclusive, need other dots to establish fingerprint". All users of Ungoogled "share my number". So I'm not being identified, I'm only being narrowed down. Your EMPTY string does the same exact thing. It does not identify you, but it does the same exact "narrowing down". THAT IS HOW FINGERPRINTING WORKS. One data point "narrows down" the list. A second data point "narrows it down further". A third data point "narrows it down even more". Get enough data points and you have narrowed down the entire global population to ONE PERSON.
-
You are DENSE, you know that? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. A unique number and EMPTY are the SAME EXACT THING as far as a FINGERPRINT is concerned. IT IS A UNIQUE IDENTIFIER, ONE DOT ON THAT FINGERPRINT.