NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Here's a Blast From The Past that you may be interested in -- https://www.defensive-security.com/blog/hiding-behind-ja3-hash I used to dive into all of this much deeper than nowadays. If you are on the internet, you have been fingerprinted, PERIOD. It's more about BLENDING IN WITH THE CROWD these days. Don't "block" these fingerprints, turn them into a blend-in-with-the-crowd instead. By "blocking", you stand out like a sore thumb, you've made yourself ONE in BILLIONS. Don't make youself UNIQUE, make yourself a blend-in. I thought we already went over this? Several times.
-
Technically, NOTHING, not so much as even a "space". Because these both come in under IFRAMES and I block iframes by default. And, um, I don't see the point of turning off all of my default defenses just to see what I get then. But you don't need to load the full page if you want to test these across several browsers, skip the iframe and load the content directly. JA3 Hash: https://tls.browserleaks.com/iframe/ja3_hash Akamai Hash: https://tls.browserleaks.com/iframe/akamai_hash
-
Nope. I measured with calibrated instrumentation.
-
Me too! I only change one variable at a time and all I can tell you with 123,456,789% confidence is that this is not UACH-related.
-
I am hereby very THANKFUL that other folks have chimed in on the original OPs non-MSFN post that this is not a UACH issue. "Told you so." And HILARIOUS how MSFN gets a mention for ad nauseam speculations.
-
If these WORK in XP, then we have to RULE THEM OUT AS CULPRITS. Our focus has to be with "technologies" that DO NOT WORK in XP. The only one I am seeing thus far is *elliptic curve*. I'd have to research these, but a quick search for if they do NOT work in XP has revealed NOTHING - so I have to assume that these DO work in XP.
-
And we can not rule out *elliptic curve* encryption. Remember, this cloudflare-cycle is in XP only! I cannot replicate in 7, I cannot replicate in 10. Regardless of UACH-capable version or not. And again, Ungoogled v122 and Supermium v122 are *identical* as far as a server looking at their UACH alone, I see no UACH discrimination. I cannot uncycle this cloudflare-cycle in XP with a fake UACH. UACH is not the culprit here, not in my investigation. I have still yet to witness anything but "undue paranoia" regarding UACH. TO ME, everything still seems to point to *elliptic curve* encryption! Turning off certificate errors client-side has no effect on server-side. Unfortunately, Proxomitron even has issues with Cloudflare Crap, so my best tool for debug is handicapped.
-
But let's be as real and honest as we can here. If we REALLY want to isolate this as UACH, then that should be the ONLY "variable" changed! Technically, to be truly scientific, win32 should re-release a v122 that broadcasts a UACH of Chrome 128 on Win11. MAKE NO OTHER CHANGES EXCEPT THAT ONE VARIABLE. Then test in XP SP3 !!! He's not going to! Because I am 100% positive that even he himself doesn't really think UACH is the issue here. He hasn't done anything to prove or disprove, he merely threw out a "probably" response to appease the audience. Sorry, that's what it looks like from "this perspective". Again, I have no problem whatsoever in "being wrong". But I also have no problem whatsoever in saying "I told you so".
-
That number sounds WAY too low. I doubt this list is extensive as far as "minor" versus "major" releases, but it lists TWENTY SEVEN Chrome versions for 2024 and we are only in AUGUST -- https://google-chrome.en.uptodown.com/windows/versions I counted THIRTY EIGHT Chrome versions for 2023. I also doubt this list to be extensive as far as "minor" versus "major", but it lists SEVENTEEN Firefox versions for 2024 and again, it's only AUGUST -- https://mozilla-firefox.en.uptodown.com/windows/versions I counted THIRTY ONE Firefox versiosn for 2023.
-
It was not UACH !!! Bottom line, your bias against UACH is clouding your investigation. Your investigation is SUBJECTIVE versus OBJECTIVE. I invite you to have @AstroSkipper investigate this FOR YOU. He will be purely objective and scientific. As is, you SEEM TO BE so CONVINCED that this is a UACH issue that you CANNOT see past that PRE-CONCEIVED NOTION. Sorry, that's the BEST that I have for you. Supermium 122 and Ungoogled 122 send the same exact UACH and I even screencap'd that for you. There is nothing more for me to do here other than SIT AND WAIT for win32 to release a Supermium version that broadcasts a UACH of Chrome 128 on Win11 then tell you I TOLD YOU SO when the OPs website continues to cloudflare-cycle in WinXP SP3.
-
You guys are grasping at straws, plain and simple. And you're not even trying to PROVE anything. You're just throwing out a UACH claim and thinking we will follow like Lemmings over the cliff.
-
No offense, but you guys are full of "hit". And this is WHY that KEYWORD of POSSIBLE was written by win32ss - because he himself did not prove nor disprove, he just accepted the "hint" that it's UACH -- IT ISN'T. Supermium BY DEFAULT, I've made NO CHANGES, already reports the same EXACT UACH as Ungoogled v122. I'll add the screencap above. MSFN no longer likes multiple screencap posts within a certain time span but does let you add to previous posts.
-
I know! My point is I'm not buying into this claim! I could be wrong, I'll have no problem admitting it. But until, and ONLY until I witness the OPs website "not work with default UACH but THEN WORK WITH AN UPDATED UACH should ANY of us "agree" that this is a UACH issue !!!
-
One moment... I shall now screencap SUPERMIUM with the same EXACT UACH as Ungoogled v122. Give me a moment to hex out win32ss's UACH and hex in what is being CLAIMED as a fix to the OPs enquiry. And will do so using what the OP reported: ie, Does anyone else have similar problems? Windows XPSP3, Supermium_x86 124.0.6367.245 / 122.0.6261.152
-
win32ss also added this -- That's why Supermium will soon default to identifying as Google Chrome 128 running on Windows 11. Here is what Ungoogled Chromium shows for UACH: The cloudflare capcha works perfectly fine in Ungoogled v122, so if (which I do not believe... yet!), so IF this is "UACH discrimination", then it's discrimination against Supermium and NOT OLDER CHROME V122. SUPERMIUM SHOWS THE SAME EXACT UACH BY DEFAULT - THIS IS NOT A UACH ISSUE!
-
The key word seems to be POSSIBLE. The proof is always via PICTURES or even VIDEO. Show me a "before and after", otherwise I'm calling "BS".
-
You are smarter than that! That list is not a list of where to witness CNAME Cloaking and you know that! Those are THIRD-PARTY CDNs, those are NOT first-party URLs! www.google.com is the first-party URL. That URL doesn't do the tracking! And you know that! It's gstatic.com and googleadservices.com and doubleclick.net and ytimg.com and googletagmanager that does the TRACKING. You are trying to MISLEAD and I'm smarter than that - as are most MSFN readers!
-
No offense, but I'm kind of done here. The sky is not falling. Those lists don't help. Those are third-party trackers. I need the first-party URL that pulls in one of these third-party trackers. And again, what is the purpose here if I have to DISABLE ALL OF MY CURRENT DEFENSE MECHANISMS ??? These things are so rare that I'm not gonna lose one second of sleep over them. For one, it's a CACHE issue. You have to visit both sites in order for a CNAME Cloak to pull something from Site A's *cache* and use it in Site B's *rendering*. This really is a MUTE ISSUE for those like me that clear the cache between each and every session. Again, the sky is not falling. Brave tried to convince us it was. Didn't work then, won't work now.
-
Because the OP specifically cited XP and we get these all the time. XP users keep forgetting that XP cannot do "elliptic curve".
-
I would look at SSL Certificate in that example. It doesn't appear to be related to Client Hints.
-
Your issue is with the 'Nunito Sans' font. You're opening a Can Of Worms if you really want to learn how to find and fix font-related issues.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
It's definitely an issue here. New profile. I'll do some digging in spare time. -
True. But, um, the mark of insanity is repeating the same task and expecting a different result. If a web site kicks in IE Mode, stop visiting that web site.
-
If you want me to be perfectly honest, I AGREE WITH YOU. I run v122. Others run v86. Live and let live. I do disagree with updating twenty times per year, or whatever pace these browsers keep updating.