NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Thanks. That's all I ask.
-
I submit that you should also consider this perspective - if, and again a big IF, but if I find "unique ID strings" in *ALL* of the security programs of this thread, does that mean that the entire thread should be shut down? I'm not claiming that they exist. But I do know that *ALL* anti-virus programs manufacturers have been "slapped on the wrist" throughout the many decades I have used computers for whether or not their "data mining" crossed the line on Privacy Rights.
-
Noted. And in that thread, you wrote this -- "where I was even courteous enough to provide a very rare installer for Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, which I had previously cleaned and thus decontaminated" So are we allowing MODDED versions or not? Because Kaspersky CAN be MODDED to be "safe and secure" and NO LONGER a concern with identifier strings. That is the angle I am coming from. I have not tested yet, all I've done thus far is create 4 partitions and installed XP *three times* so I have TIME INVESTED. IF, and it's a big IF, but IF Kaspersky (after removing telemetry and Unique ID String) is lean and mean compared to AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, MalwareBytes, then WE MUST consider it as the "superior" alternative for OLD HARDWARE. Again, a big IF, but if an XP installed with Kaspersky "idles" at 5% CPU utilization and 15% RAM utilization where an XP installed with McAfee "idles" at 20% CPU utilization and 40% RAM utilization, then who in their right mind would use McAfee. Purely hypothetically percentages at this stage.
-
That's fair! Though I request additional clarity. Is your objection to Kaspersky SOLELY based on the CVE Report? Because if so, that report is about the UNIQUE ID STRING. Something that Avast and AVG and you-name-it have also been "slapped on the wrist" with CVE Reports.
-
That's valid. Although a simple HOSTS file block would not be a violation. Also, the "CVE Vulnerability" (which also exists for MalwareBytes, AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, etc!) is REMOVED COMPLETELY by a registry entry that removes the "unique ID string". The CVE Report against Kaspersky (and MalwareBytes, AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, etc!) is NOT about Kaspersky "collecting data", it's about linking that harvested data to a unique ID string that points to "a person". MalwareBytes has CVE Reports for the same! So does AVG! So does Avast! So does McAfee! So does Norton! Et cetera. Some users are okay with this sort of "data". Doesn't Windows Update also do this? There's no MSFN Boycott on Windows Updates. In fact, we go out of our way to "make it work" instead.
-
Agreed! But let's be fair and open. Firefox, SRWare Iron, etc is not secure by default, the end user has to take steps to make it secure. 360Chrome is not secure by default, MSFN went through great lengths to create a version we are comfortable using. The same CAN be done for Kaspersky. And it is a valid topic of discussion for this thread.
-
You have no authority to do this. This thread is about security programs for XP that work. Kaspersky is one of them. That is not a "praise".
-
That is true. Because I do not use nor believe in anti-virus products. That said, it IS the anti-Kaspersky talks that have me INSTALLING IT on a laptop "to witness for myself". I am not "praising" Kaspersky. In fact, it's the opposite. My view (from past experience) is that ALL anti-virus programs do what we often point out in regards to Kaspersky. I am installing it! Among a couple others. By all means, please tell me exactly which ones to install. My goal is to install only THREE and one of those three MUST be Kaspersky.
-
True, but let's not hide those concerns under the rug for OTHER anti-virus programs. Let's NOT act like Kaspersky is the only offender. McAfee is equally "offensive" and I may end up posting the same sort of "DLL H3LL" screencap later this weekend. How many .dll's does AVG use? How many additional "processes" listed in Task Manager? Et cetera. I view it along the lines of “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Pointing out the Kaspersky Plank while pretending sawdust doesn't exist in other products is "misleading".
-
@UCyborg kind of beat me to the punch. I have an XP Era Correct laptop (Dell Latitude D830) that I spent last night formatting and creating four partitiions. One partition is for shared data, the other three are for a "triple boot XP" setup. Boot into first partition and you have an untouched default-install XP x86 SP3 (no POSReady, maybe later) installation with Anti-Virus "Brand X". Boot into second partition and you have an untouched default-install XP x86 SP3 (no POSReady, maybe later) installation with Anti-Virus "Brand Y". Boot into third partition and you have an untouched default-install XP x86 SP3 (no POSReady, maybe later) installation with Anti-Virus "Brand Z". My next step was to install anti-virus onto each partition, with one being KASPERSKY. The informed reader needs information. Let's seek to supply actual INFORMATION. Again, a many MANY thanks to @UCyborg for starting an INFORMATIVE discussion.
-
It will not work for the XP crowd, and do not attempt on your actual OS but use a VM instead, but official "upstream" is at v114 as of a week or so ago. I've ported portions into English but find it to be SLOWER then Ungoogled Chromium v114. Getting it into a workable ENGLISH web browser would be an extreme undertaking. Since Ungoogled Chromium is faster and with tons of web browsers available once you are at an OS that is required for newer "upstream" anyway, I'm seeing ZERO need to undertake such a project. Though v114 does not solve Weppy Scare anyway, it's only an indication that upstream is still evolving.
-
It's the only effective solution for this. Been using it for twenty years! Long Live Proxo.
-
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
-
Pleasse count the .dll's for other anti-virus programs and report back your findings on them also. McAfee for one is also very big into this "DLL file invasion and abuse". Taking this thread to such "anti-Kaspersky" extremes serves your viewers a dis-service and not a "service". What @UCyborg posted is of USEFUL IMPORTANCE and is INFORMATIVE to the viewer. We need more of THAT instead of useless "massive security concern" innuendos without actual proof or verification.
-
Totally agreed. It's like anti-alias sub-pixel fonts. I get migraines from anti-alias sub-pixel fonts and most of my coworkers can't even "see" the difference. I've also noticed those crappy quality images even here at MSFN. But they weren't .webp at the time, they were .png images and it was tied to what they used in order to do the screencap. It doesn't seem that widespread to me. My news and financial web sites don't rely on .webp as they are not that graphic-intensive. And I don't do games, so no frame of reference there. It is extremely surprising that even if I set up an "accept" header that should indicate "don't serve me weppy", the web sites IGNORE the "accept" header and serve them anyway.
-
It's still version 86 under the hood and the letters "webp" do not exist in the changelog.
-
Actually, allow me to rephrase that. We (the sort of folks that become members of forums such as MSFN) may not agree on MVPS Hosts versus hardware firewall versus software firewall versus real-time full-time anti-virus versus on-demand malware scans versus Proxomitron versus uBO versus uMatrix versus DoH versus NoScript verus HTTPS Everywhere versus a hundred different things, but what we all do have in common is that we do Practice Safe Hex in our own preferred ways. I'll use uBO as an example. While this "Weppy Scare" does supposedly exist "in the wild", my hunch is that their is a uBO "list" that already safeguards from the "in the wild" web site that technically only exists "in theory". I wouldn't mind knowing EXACTLY where this "in the wild" actually IS. But they never seem to tell you that, it's just the normal "update now!" routine, "You are not safe unless you update now! Update your OS! Update your browser! Update Now!" "Blah blah blah" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfJhMfOPWdE
-
This is not going to be "for everyone", some folks believe in every "scare tactic" thrown at them. But "for me", I'm opting to do NOTHING in regards to this Weppy Scare. My computer does NOT protect against Meltdown and Spectre and it will also NOT protect against Weppy. We used to have a saying, "Practice Safe Hex". I've never been hit with a virus or malware and I don't visit the sorts of web sites where one is prone to these "dark shadows". To each their own, of course. But to me, this is just hype and propaganda. Much ado about nothing. Mileage may vary.
-
To be honest, I have opted to do NOTHING. I'm not in the least bit concerned with all of this recent "hype and propaganda" regarding .webp. To each their own, of course. But to ME, it's nothing more than any other virus or malware out there that has never hit my machines. Reminds me of back in the day when I was a "church goer" and everybody knew I could fix computers so everybody would have me fix them for them. You'd get the same people over and over again. To the point that you FINALLY have to tell them (due to the items discovered on their computers), "You wouldn't get these if you stopped visiting p0rn sites." Sure, there is always the THEORY that .webp could come in via a third-party "advertisement" that your otherwise SAFE web site wouldn't otherwise have, but these 'in the wild" reports DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
-
Confirmed, sadly. In newer versions of Ungoogled Chromium, there is a flag to set your "accept" header (ie, for those that don't use Proxomitron). The "gallery test page" displays these webp images whether the "accept" header indicates the browser can render webp or not. But I also wonder if this "gallery test page" is even sending true .webp images because IE8 does not support webp and this "gallery test page" shows these .webp images even with an IE8 useragent and client hints disabled. Though I am also on Win10 at the moment so unsure if that is playing a factor.
-
Future of Chromium on older Windows 10 versions and RTM.
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dixel's topic in Windows 10
Agreed. Coincidence ≠ Proof Q.E.D. -
Future of Chromium on older Windows 10 versions and RTM.
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dixel's topic in Windows 10
So Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, got it. -
Agreed. A very easy fix using Proxomitron. At least it should be, I haven't tried as of yet.
-
I do this via Proxomitron. But for the non-Proxo 360Chrome user, I can follow @Dixel's suggestion and upload a revision within the next day or two. I'd likely only upload a new rev for build 13.5.2036 as it is the only version I still use. Unknown which versions we still have MSFN Members using.