NotHereToPlayGames

I did not read his post as attempting to register a fake account. <OT> In my opinion, there kind of is no difference between the "trolls" we have here and a "fake" account - the end result is basically the same. </OT> My hunch is that the registration process may have inadvertently been broken when we were being hit with HUNDREDS of spam-bot posts for a few days in a row and had to solve that very quickly. Sure, I'd rather see "no new members allowed" than those HUNDREDS of spam-bot posts literally SECONDS apart and lasting for HOURS. But MSFN will fade into the sunset if we don't allow new members. Though on the other hand, purely from an economical feasibility perspective, if we were to take our last 5,000 posts and find that 4,900 of them all came from 20 members, then, um, well...

Some Halloween trivia - one of the worst snowfalls ever to land on Halloween was 1917. What followed was the "Purple Death" of 1918 where 675,000 people in the US (21 million worldwide) died from the Spanish flu (more than WWI, WWII, Korean, and Vietnam wars COMBINED). Side note - it snowed on Halloween here in the midwest USA in 2019 - related to Covid 19 that followed? Just a fun fact, I guess, lol. Snow on Halloween is actually extremely rare. Less than 3% chance if I recall.

Good point. I've never really liked these manual updates, TBH. I'm thinking I just need to visit the websites that "trigger" these cert pings via IE8 (or Chromium 39 or 49) and see what that yields.

For reference - https://msfn.org/board/topic/183352-proxhttpsproxy-and-httpsproxy-in-windows-xp-for-future-use/?do=findComment&comment=1213600 And - https://msfn.org/board/topic/175170-root-certificates-and-revoked-certificates-for-windows-xp/#comment-1095349

Will manually update certificate store this evening. This seems the best method - https://msfn.org/board/topic/181915-system-certificates-updater-the-easy-way/

I've been reluctant to perform any of the "manual" updates for XP's certificate store. I kind of remain reluctant. I guess even moreso now that I don't "rely" on XP nearly as much as I did a year ago. I guess to me, 360Chrome has served its purpose (ie, buy some time while tweaking Win10 to my satisfaction).

That didn't take long. I rebooted after unchecking and they are still showing up in my logs. Adding them to my HOSTS file.

Quite possible. I did have that checked and now have it unchecked. Will monitor over the next few days and see if those pings are gone, my network traffic is always logged, if the computer is "on", the network is LOGGED. I can report that this is NOT a 360Chrome issue and these are US DOMAINS. It also seems to be XP Only. I've not yet witnessed these in any of my Win10 machines. I suppose what is happening is that a certificate is trying to update, it FAILS, so it tries again after a set time interval or with the next reboot or something. I personally feel that the whole cert BS is just as INSECURE these days as HTTP versus HTTPS was in the 90s. The "padlock" in a web browser address bar is WORTHLESS these days. Long gone are the days where it was only your BANK that used HTTPS. These days, MALWARE DISTRIBUTION web sites "miraculously" always always ALWAYS have a "secure padlock", even in XP, but web sites like MSFN do not. So seriously, why even "look" at that browser padlock? Hmmm...

And perhaps more importantly, those are all US DOMAINS. No need to throw in the geopolitical "speculatives".

FALSE ALARM !!! I've just witnessed the same pings on another computer that has never had any version of 360Chrome ever installed! I don't really know "how" XP x64's certificate store is "updated" and it seems these pings are "normal", I've just never seen them before.

By all means, create a thread for any-and-all. Just as Astro likes his threads to stay on point, I fail to see how Brisk Bard 2.6.0 pertains to "360Chrome v13.5.2044 rebuild 2". Sure, there might be a case to be made for not having a 2044 thread, a 2036 thread, a 2022 thread, a 1030 thread. But I do that for a reason and forum "activity" will/should roll the old off of "page 1" and keep the "active" at the top. At least, that's what I'm used to, I have this forum so heavily style-sheeted that I have no clue what it's supposed to look like, lol. The just-discovered .crt/.cer/.p7c "pinging" does affect *ALL* versions of 360Chrome (mine, Humming Owl, Russian Repack, upstream). But I maintain that for the most part, issues with 2044 have no bearing on 1030 so issues with 2044 should be contained within the 2044 thread. Et cetera. That was the intent at least. I say that being a "rare user" of Serpent 52 and New Moon 27/28. Being a "rare" user, I don't read that thread daily/weekly. And jumping in once a month is a NIGHTMARE to get one's self "caught up" on Serpent 52 when several other browsers are discussed all within the same exact thread. BOTH approaches are perfectly valid, of course. We all have our own opinions re: thread-count (and forum trolling, I see them as related due to the "parties" that say "this" versus "that"). "Opinions are like butts. We all have them, doesn't mean we all want to hear them."

1030, 2022, 2036, and 2044 all ping these "certificates". Upstream, Russian Repack, my releases, and Humming Owl releases (13.0.2250 and 13.0.2310). The good news is that they are only "pinged", the browser as a "portable" cannot interact with the OS in a way that an "installed" browser would be able to. Those that do not clear their cache with each and every browser exit may have had these "pings" only upon creating their profile afresh. These are the pings I've witnessed thus far, likely more - ht-tp://apps.identrust.com/roots/dstrootcax3.p7c ht-tp://cacerts.digicert.com/CloudflareIncECCCA-3.crt ht-tp://cacerts.digicert.com/DigiCertGlobalG3TLSECCSHA3842020CA1-2.crt ht-tp://cacerts.digicert.com/DigiCertGlobalRootG3.crt ht-tp://cacerts.digicert.com/DigiCertTLSHybridECCSHA3842020CA1-1.crt ht-tp://crt.e2m02.amazontrust.com/e2m02.cer ht-tp://crt.rootca3.amazontrust.com/rootca3.cer ht-tp://crt.usertrust.com/USERTrustECCAddTrustCA.crt ht-tp://e1.i.lencr.org/ ht-tp://secure.globalsign.com/cacert/gseccovsslca2018.crt ht-tp://x2.i.lencr.org/ ht-tp://zerossl.crt.sectigo.com/ZeroSSLECCDomainSecureSiteCA.crt 1030 will be fixed first.

It fetches "something"! At the very least, it does upon first launch. Did not check consecutive launches. Aborted before even lettting it complete the 14 MB download.

That is a matter of opinion and this thread is not about the "age" of the engine, this thread is not about the "age" of the OS, et cetera.

Did not get to a "rebuild 3" of 2044 this weekend. I do have a "rebuild 9" of 1030 that uses many of 2044s files (where possible) and implements all of 2044s discussions/evolutions. 2044 (and 2036, perhaps even 2022) has been found to occasionally ping (seemingly) "fake" certificate 'updates' via HTTP. I have to "assume" them to be fake because I would find it very surprising that "real" Microsoft certificates are fetched via HTTP versus HTTPS. I have not seen the pinged certificates effect XP's official certificate store. 1030 is not making those pings so I've reverted focus towards 1030 over all of the newer builds (technically, 1030 has always been my preference, as far as that goes).

The company I work for manufactures control units for the electronics that control hybrid and electric vehicles. A good 60 percent of our factory floor computers all run XP. A good 25% all run Linux-based not-really-Linux proprietary OSs. The other 15% is scattered randomly between Raspberry Pi OS and Win7. Nothing on the factory floor runs 10 or 11. And I would say likely never will.

If users want a hardcoded search engine, none have requested thus far. I already know WHERE they get hardcoded - ie, I already removed the hardcoded Chinese search engines.

I do not. And the hardcoded Chinese search engines are removed. No hardcoded search engines.

As far as memory consumption goes, some of you may have noticed that icudtl.dat went from 10,518,160 bytes in builds 1030 and 2036 (only two I've backtracked) to 6,099,456 bytes in build 2044 - a 42% decrease. Official Chrome/Chromium has several articles reporting that they have no plans to reduce this binary size. Here's one such article - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aC64nJZ4nKeah-KwsGuAAf2vDApYhkPPhdz2km3zlrg/ This ICU Dependency can vary quite a bit in size. Some sizes can be seen here - https://www.exefiles.com/en/dat/icudtl-dat/ I didn't parse the entire list, but Microsoft Office Access 2010 has an icudtl.dat file size of 26,350,240 and UC Browser 7.0 has an icudtl.dat file size of 5,875,840. Mypal 27.9.4's equivalent .dll is 10.4 MB. Serpent 52.9 from 2022-01-19 is 11.1 MB. Serpent 52.9 from 2023-07-14 is 13.9 MB. Supermium 117 is 10.1 MB. Ungoogled Chromium 114 is 10.0 MB. Most tend to be in the 10 to 14 MB range as far as web browsers. 360Chrome 13.5.2044 and UC Browser versions are the only "small" variations I have found (haven't spent a lot of time hunting, more of a curiosity). At any rate, limited experimentation suggests that build 2044's smaller icudtl.dat is okay to use in builds 1030 and 2036 (only two I have tested).

It's just a "down arrow". I wouldn't call it "important enough" to try hunting down what font is needed.

That is not a translation error. That is Mega using a font that is not installed on your system.

I think you already KNOW. But sure, I'll answer = the dark theme jisu9 is 1.67 MB "big", the Win10-blue is 145 KB "mediium", the XP is 61 KB "small". No, there's no night-and-day difference from "debloating" the skin, but remember that the original intent was for a web browser that can be used with XP and only 2 GB RAM. Heck, I think we had users running with only 1 GB RAM. So yeah, we (plural) removed as much "bloat" as we could find. There's actually still some "bloat" that could be squeezed out, but who's counting. Definitely not desired. Will resolve in a "rebuild 3". That is one route to go. But in my past versions, I changed it to open a blank new tab and mouse-focus the address bar and I shall do that here also. Though it also indicates a missed "translation" error because Alt + Home and F1 are not both intended to open the home page in a new tab. Alt + Home opens the home page defined in the On Startup home page field, whether it is set to open on startup or not. Will resolve in "rebuild 3".

Agreed! I've always stated that this project was more of a stop-gap to "buy time" for XP users to migrate away from XP. Though even in 10, there are still some tasks that I prefer to throw at 360Chrome. I think that is MORE COMMON than most realize, especially here at MSFN. I cite Serpent builds. Let's be fair, there is a LOT that Serpent (my secondary on XP) simply can NOT do. But what it does do has a very large following despite what it cannot do. Unique traits of Serpent. Unique traits of New Moon. Unique traits of 360Chrome. We're all allowed to have our own favorite. I have history on my side, whenever newcomers ask "what browser is the best", my answer is always the same, though maybe worded differently each time. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "BEST" BROWSER. Personal choice. Personal choice. Personal choice. It's like the recent issues with Chase.com. I know that history well! I cancelled a Chase credit card when I could no longer access the site using Official Pale Moon. Little did I know that Chase was only the first chapter of that very long story. Members that have been around a while know about my water bill payment web site, lol. Surprisingly, 360Chrome can do all of those still to this day on XP. Thanks to conversations here at MSFN, of course (ie, polyfills).

Very very SLIGHT edge to 2044 being faster than 1030. These scores are on XP x64 with a 10yr old i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM. I haven't ran the comparison on any of my older x86 machines because while scores will vary, the ORDER of which performs FASTER has always remained the same when comparing multiple machines.

As another member has often pointed out, NOW we know WHY several technical forums FORBID topics pertaining to "security" which only result in people "taking sides".