Jump to content

Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion


Recommended Posts

Yes, again no disagreement.

But "at the same time" these people with only 2GB of RAM need to stop living in a "fantasy world" and stop expecting their 1996 computer to function 100% in 2021.

ie, if you only have 2GB of RAM and you are loading 10 or more tabs, "then you bring upon your own pain and no doctor can treat you."

:buehehe:

 

That said, I have 6 computers and two of them have 2GB of RAM (one used exclusively for streaming videos, but I don't bog it down with other tabs while doing so, that would be "unrealistic" of me).

I certainly don't expect them to function comparably to my i7-4770 computer with 16GB of RAM.

 

But anyway, I think we've beat this dead horse and others know where we are both coming from  :)

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I know that I already called it a Dead Horse - but I've come across a REPEATABLE test if you WANT to CRASH your browser.

A word of caution in advance, this *will* CRASH your browser and you *will* have a TON of error dialogs to clear.

But the computer does remains responsive - I'm only crashing the browser and not the OS.

 

I did this in a WinXP VirtualBox with 2GB RAM - the numbers would vary plus or minus 5 or so with consecutive runs.

v11 crashed with only roughly 58 about:blank's opened.

v12 crashed with roughly 74.

V13 crashed with roughly 97.

 

Note that I"m only loading "about:blank" tabs but this test DOES demonstrate that newer versions don't crash as early as older versions with a "ton of tabs" open.

 

Here's how (I use the "portable repack", so these instructions will need modified if you use the "installed" version versus the "portable") -

Create a "crash.bat" file (without the quotes) in the same folder that contains "360Loader.exe".

When you execute crash.bat, several about:blanks will open and *will* eventually CRASH  --  the command prompt will stop incrementing when no more about:blanks will load - ie, you crashed your browser.

 

The crash.bat contents follow  --

 

@echo off
for /l %%i in (1,1,1000) do (
  echo Tab Count: %%i
  start 360Loader.exe "about:blank"
  ping 127.0.0.1 -n 1 > nul
)

 

Happy Crashing  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tab between "Lab" and "Adfilter" is "Security and Privacy".

It's actually fairly easy to fix.

I fixed mine labeling it "Security" (screen cap below).

 

The "how" kinda needs done by yourself on your end (I wouldn't want to violate any copyrights/trademarks by making changes for you and uploading).

So I can walk you through "how" but I don't think I can upload - better safe than sorry.

 

I use the "portable repack" so these instructions stem from that.

Go to your "install-folder\Chrome\Application\version.0.build.0" folder.

You will find an "options.zip" file in that folder - unzip using WINRAR (will not work using IZArc or 7-Zip, did not try others).

Once unzipped, you will find an "options.html" file.

Open "options.html" with Notepad++.

There's over 3600 lines but you can page down and easily find all of the "Chinese" because they'll show up as a bunch of boxes (unless you have a Chinese font installed or allow fonts to install on their own, which I do not).

When you find the "Chinese" 'boxes', simply highlight, copy, and paste into Google Translate.

Then replace the "Chinese" 'boxes' with however you wish to reword the translation.

Once you go through all 3600 lines (you only need to edit two dozen or so, don't remember offhand), save the file and rezip using WINRAR.

Close 360, save the new "options.zip" back into the "install-folder\Chrome\Application\version.0.build.0" folder.

 

Now when you open 360, you will see your translations instead of the Chinese remnants not translated by the Russian Repack guy.

Really easy  :)

 

untitled-medium.jpg.e5db443444aa9cbf1309eb598ad8a3e3.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one installs the ImTranslator Chrome extension: 

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/imtranslator-translator-d/noaijdpnepcgjemiklgfkcfbkokogabh

then one can translate the inline Chinese (left-over) strings, so one can at least get an idea of what the settings are about

BaKJqPo.jpg

Not a permanent solution like the one detailed by @ArcticFoxie , but still, if you only want to 

On 1/30/2021 at 11:59 AM, genieautravail said:

know what is the purpose of these settings

, I guess it could be of great help... ;) :)

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use this browser.

To use the browser with greater privacy and security, it is necessary to make wise use of Command Line Switches + Experimental Flags.

The below command line switches:

--cipher-suite-blacklist=0x002F,0x0035,0x000A,0x009C,0xC014,0x009D,0xC013

for example, they eliminate the insecure cipher suites.

A discussion of some interesting Experimental Flags, if present in your browser version, can be found:

 

https://malwaretips.com/threads/list-of-interesting-experimental-flags-for-google-chrome.41686/

Using some extensions might also be interesting:

  • Classic Cache Killer 2.2

  • Canvas Blocker - Fingerprint Protect 0.1.5

  • Font Fingerprint Defender 0.1.3

  • WebRTC Protect - Protect IP Leak 0.1.7

 

The complete List of Chromium Command Line Switches is:

 

https://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

... it is necessary to make wise use of Command Line Switches + Experimental Flags.

The below command line switches:

--cipher-suite-blacklist=0x002F,0x0035,0x000A,0x009C,0xC014,0x009D,0xC013

 

To each their own, but in "my book" this is a GIGANTIC don't care!.

I see it somewhat as a smear-campaign tactic to scare people away without viewing the bigger picture.

But I'll follow along for the sake of discussion and to illustrate that bigger picture.

 

You cited 7 weak ciphers - which version did you pull that from?

I'm showing only 6 for v13  --  0xc013, 0xc014, 0x9c, 0x9d, 0x2f, and 0x35  --  https://clienttest.ssllabs.com:8443/ssltest/viewMyClient.html

 

BUT, since we are on this path -

I'm showing 12 for Mypal 27.9.4 - but no surprise, it's dated 2018.

I'm showing 12 for palemoon-27.9.7.win32-git-20210130-126891b20-xpmod released just this past weekend.

I'm showing 12 for palemoon-28.10.2a1.win32-git-20210130-0fe3d520e-uxp-e1daeef18-xpmod released just this past weekend.

I'm showing 12 for bnavigator.win32-20210130-355db4de-uxp-e1daeef18-xpmod released just this past weekend.

I'm showing 14 for basilisk55-win32-git-20210130-27e1f69a6-xpmod released just this past weekend.

I'm showing 12 for basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210130-5fdeb2a-uxp-e1daeef18-xpmod released just this past weekend.

I'm showing 12 for arcticfox-27.11.0.win32-git-20210130 released just this past weekend.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote it for the benefit of others, not for you.
If you don't care you were wrong to read my post.
Ignore it, as I should have ignored your useless comments.
 

P.S. The test you entered for the verification of the insecure chiper suites is not the only one.
And since I wrote that I do not use this browser it is obvious that the example cited is not specifically referred to 360 but it can be very well adapted to your browser.

 

Never resent it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize if I sounded too "critical".

I simply failed to comprehend why anyone would point out 6 (7?) "weak ciphers" in the browser that this thread is discussing but throw a blind eye to to the TWICE AS MANY "weak ciphers" in the other popular browsers discussed on this forum.

If Roytam isn't striving for ZERO "weak ciphers", then why would we expect a repacked Chrome version targeting XP to strive for ZERO "weak ciphers"?

 

But again, apologies if I didn't tackle this with a tad more "political correctness"  :)

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of cipher suites used by 360EE, v12 & v13 (but NOT v11) are built with support for the Chinese-exclusive cipher suite 0xe013; yes, the Chinese are developing independently their own cipher suites for use inside their own Cyberspace (:whistle: ) -  the one sanctioned by the GFW, of course! :sneaky:

These Chinese-only suites are not (yet?) endorsed by the rest of the world, IOW they are not properly indexed/standardised... Of the three testing sites I use, 

https://clienttest.ssllabs.com:8443/ssltest/viewMyClient.html

never identifies 0xe013, but 

https://browserleaks.com/ssl

and 

https://www.howsmyssl.com/a/check

occasionally/randomly do: 

hI3SrFm.jpg

KvQT5WP.jpg

When that "unknown" suite is detected, then the client always gets a bad rating...

I haven't found conclusive info on that Chinese cipher suite, mere mentions of it on GitHub: 

https://github.com/guanzhi/GmSSL/blob/master/ssl/t1_trce.c

Quote

{0xE013, "GMT_ECC_SM4_SM3"}

More about GmSSL and the GM/T standards can be found on:
https://github.com/guanzhi/GmSSL#about-gmssl
http://gmssl.org/english.html

In any case, I've taken up the advice of @Sampei.Nihira and disabled it in my 12+13 versions, via: 

--cipher-suite-blacklist=0xe013

FTR, that suite was first introduced in 360EEv12 build 1150 (12.0.1150.0) ... :)

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VistaLover said:

On the subject of cipher suites used by 360EE, v12 & v13 (but NOT v11) are built with support for the Chinese-exclusive cipher suite 0xe013

In any case, I've taken up the advice of @Sampei.Nihira and disabled it in my 12+13 versions, via: 


--cipher-suite-blacklist=0xe013

 

Thanks @VistaLover  --  I've disabled 0xe013 now as well.

ALL browsers (will confirm one of these days with Win10 browsers, probably should do that before I use the word "all") have "weak" (never used?) ciphers, but this is the first I've seen any mention of any "exclusive" shenanigans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...