Monkey Scripts

[NotHereToPlayGames]

48 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

Then listen to D'Darker's raving wisdom and replace with https://0.0.0.0

No, no, no, no, no.

Again for those in the back row - No, no, no, no, no!

Why?  Because then the browser opens a new tab when you UNINSTALL the extension!  The whole POINT of that MOD is for NO TAB TO BE LAUNCHED when the extension is UNINSTALLED!

Especially no PHONE-HOME tab to the HOME PAGE.  But why replace the phone-home HOME PAGE URL with a EMPTY TAB URL ???

 

Try your advice!  It launches an empty tab (with a certificate error).  Again, the entire PURPOSE of that MODIFICATION is so that I can uninstall the extension WITHOUT ANY TAB AUTO-LAUNCHING.  None, naughta, zero, zilch, null, zewo, nula, nol, cero!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0

 

Please, please, please - listen to my raving wisdom.  

[D.Draker]

I meant insert https://0.0.0.0 into Google lytics, not home page, And home page, simply edit it out completely, the whole string with the quotes, what's stopping you?

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

And home page, simply edit it out completely, the whole string with the quotes, what's stopping you?

You missed that part of the conversation.  That was discussed "before" the topic was relocated to this thread, so it's understandable that it was missed.

Tampermonkey's coding is very "tricky" in places.  MANY extensions employ TRICKS in an ATTEMPT to keep people from editing out the parts they don't like.  That does not stop me!  I find a way to edit out the BS!

In the case of the UNINSTALL auto-visit BS to the D#MN HOME PAGE, if you remove the URL entirely, or even replace parts of the URL, then the GUI will not load and CRASHES.

But if you PREFIX with "disabled-" as my mod does, THEN THE UNINSTALL AUTO-VISIT BS IS BROKEN, no new tab opens!  But yeah, sure, a CPU cycle or two was "wasted".

Sure, there are other ways to defuse the d#mn auto-visit BS upon uninstall, but my prefix-fix is a COMMON method that works in MANY extensions that code-in "you tampered with my code, I'm going to CRASH now".

Again, try your advice if you don't believe mine.  

 

THIS is what happens if you "edit it out".  The Tampermonkey author WANTS YOU TO VISIT HIS HOME PAGE.

Without modifying an otherwise great extension, the home page is visited immediately after install, 14 days later, upon various edits resulting in a crash where those edits would not crash other extensions, upon uninstalling, within useless portions of the GUI that I also mod-out, perhaps even other areas that my useage has not ran across (if I do, rest assured, they too will be mod'd out!), et cetera.  This author really does add "countless" attempts for his HOME PAGE to be auto-visited!  Not on my system!  We've also seen just what that HOME PAGE does to the chrome.exe process-count in Supermium.

Edited January 10 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Not to be misread.  I wholly and fully support the author's great extension (I've tried the alternatives and greatly disprove of them, to each their own) and he is wholly and fully "allowed" to code-in "telemetric phone-home shenanigans".

I am not a supporter of "time bomb" shenanigans, but do "understand" why MANY authors employ them.

I equally wholly and fully support the END USER acquiring the know-how to PREVENT said "telemetric phone-home shenanigans".

I personally hate hate HATE even "auto-update" BS as that is just a cleverly veiled "phone home shenanigan".

Edited January 10 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On second thought, the CRASH if that UNINSTALL URL is "tampered with" was discussed in this very thread and you even replied to it, so I did already tell you WHY that URL cannot be "tampered with" but that PREFIXING solves the auto-visit BS.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

12 hours ago, D.Draker said:

I meant insert https://0.0.0.0 into Google lytics

I can confirm that 0.0.0.0 "works" for breaking the Google Analytics telemetry for the extension that this was discussed.

I don't really have a way to "test" if this is indeed "faster" or "better" or not.  But I can confirm that it "works".

Personally, I still prefer the tt -> xx method.  Because I like to look at my modifications six months or a year from now and with that method, my mod stands out like a sore thumb.

The 0.0.0.0 would require "notes" on the side or a re-visit to the original code to see just what I mod'd out.  

I'm personally not convinced that hxxp is any slower than ht tps://0.0.0.0 because the browser does not know what to "do" with hxxp so the instruction is SKIPPED.

The browser DOES know what to "do" with ht tps://0.0.0.0.  (edit:  and it appears that an "old" browser versus a "modern" browser will react DIFFERENTLY when it encounters 0.0.0.0)

It would be one thing if I replaced a real DOMAIN with a will-not-resolve-at-the-DNS-level DOMAIN as that would obviously consume clock cycles and DNS lookup time.

But the browser (and OS) has no clue what to "do" with hxxp://you-are-here.com and it is irrelevant if "you-are-here.com" is a real DOMAIN or not, it doesn't even get sent to the server for a DNS lookup.

It doesn't even get passed through the OS hosts file for the OS to decide if it is "redirected" or not.

The REDIRECTION may indeed be FASTER, but my mod doesn't require the OS to perform any host-based redirect.

Edited January 11 by NotHereToPlayGames

[D.Draker]

On 1/11/2025 at 3:52 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I can confirm that 0.0.0.0 "works" for breaking the Google Analytics telemetry for the extension that this was discussed.

I don't really have a way to "test" if this is indeed "faster" or "better" or not.  But I can confirm that it "works".

Personally, I still prefer the tt -> xx method.  Because I like to look at my modifications six months or a year from now and with that method, my mod stands out like a sore thumb.

The 0.0.0.0 would require "notes" on the side or a re-visit to the original code to see just what I mod'd out.  

I'm personally not convinced that hxxp is any slower than ht tps://0.0.0.0 because the browser does not know what to "do" with hxxp so the instruction is SKIPPED.

The browser DOES know what to "do" with ht tps://0.0.0.0.  (edit:  and it appears that an "old" browser versus a "modern" browser will react DIFFERENTLY when it encounters 0.0.0.0)

It would be one thing if I replaced a real DOMAIN with a will-not-resolve-at-the-DNS-level DOMAIN as that would obviously consume clock cycles and DNS lookup time.

But the browser (and OS) has no clue what to "do" with hxxp://you-are-here.com and it is irrelevant if "you-are-here.com" is a real DOMAIN or not, it doesn't even get sent to the server for a DNS lookup.

It doesn't even get passed through the OS hosts file for the OS to decide if it is "redirected" or not.

The REDIRECTION may indeed be FASTER, but my mod doesn't require the OS to perform any host-based redirect.

Of course it does work. 

Fast:

"0.0.0.0 is not an address of anything".

Slow:

"127.0.0.1 is the loopback Internet protocol (IP) address also referred to as the “localhost.” The address is used to establish an IP connection to the same machine or computer being used by the end-user."

And redirection can't be faster. All because.

"You can't send data to 0.0.0.0 or actively open a TCP connection to 0.0.0.0 because there is nothing there; 0.0.0.0 isn't even an unreachable or non routable address"

All quotes from here:

https://superuser.com/questions/949428/whats-the-difference-between-127-0-0-1-and-0-0-0-0

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Agreed.

But you also cannot send data to "hxxps" and "hxxps" is not a "redirection".  There are no loopback "clock cycles" being consumed.

Edited January 12 by NotHereToPlayGames

[D.Draker]

12 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Agreed.

But you also cannot send data to "hxxps" and "hxxps" is not a "redirection". 

You can't, but the browser isn't "familiar" with randomly broken links, so it still tries to go there, whereas it was coded to properly deal with the address of 0.0.0.0.

Meaning - attempt nothing when it "sees" the zeroes, since it's been a standard for many decades.

 

[D.Draker]

On 1/11/2025 at 3:52 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

The browser DOES know what to "do" with ht tps://0.0.0.0.  (edit:  and it appears that an "old" browser versus a "modern" browser will react DIFFERENTLY when it encounters 0.0.0.0)

With modern browsers, they are "taught" to work with odd links, so like I said, it can and will try to connect.

I think, there's still a discussion can be found on how they (ISP and whatnot) spot Ungoogled chrome, it broadcasts rubbish to the net because the developer simply broke Google links, like you, but didn't clean them up.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, D.Draker said:

it broadcasts rubbish

You'd have to put your money where your mouth is with that claim.  Post the link/discussion.  Otherwise, don't believe you, don't care, and won't believe future advice from you either without documentation/links to back up such claims.

Let's be honest, if *I* posted such a claim, you'd have yourself and a couple Lemmings jumping all over me.  

So yeah, I think it is fair to ask for proof/link in this case.  If you cannot find proof of such a claim, then I don't mind informing the Ungoogled Team so they too can learn the name "D.Draker" and the others that will come by to post the "like".

I'll sit on the sidelines...  Ball is in your court...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

To be honest, I kinda of DON'T CARE (but am interested in the PROOF of your CLAIM for the sake of YOUR 6.7k Reputation).

I wholly and fully believe that *ALL* browsers can be *identified*.  Call them fingerprints, call them user agents, call them client hints, IF YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET, YOU LEAVE AN "ID" BEHIND.

No If's, And's, or But's.

[D.Draker]

13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You'd have to put your money where your mouth is with that claim.  Post the link/discussion.  Otherwise, don't believe you, don't care, and won't believe future advice from you either without documentation/links to back up such claims.

Let's be honest, if *I* posted such a claim, you'd have yourself and a couple Lemmings jumping all over me.  

So yeah, I think it is fair to ask for proof/link in this case.  If you cannot find proof of such a claim, then I don't mind informing the Ungoogled Team so they too can learn the name "D.Draker" and the others that will come by to post the "like".

I'll sit on the sidelines...  Ball is in your court...

I do, and you'd better not touch the veteran wolf of the internet. With your rep of 3.2K you're supposed to be at least somewhat *tech savvy*, and know how to use WinHex, no?

Well, despite your usual disrespectful talk, I do. Now use a tutorial on how to get to this. Need help? Get back to me.

[D.Draker]

13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

To be honest, I kinda of DON'T CARE (but am interested in the PROOF of your CLAIM for the sake of YOUR 6.7k Reputation).

I wholly and fully believe that *ALL* browsers can be *identified*.  Call them fingerprints, call them user agents, call them client hints, IF YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET, YOU LEAVE AN "ID" BEHIND.

No If's, And's, or But's.

And please stop with the CAPSLOCKING.

The "super clever" developer of Ungoogled simply replaced "chromium" with "ch40m1um".

Is it a 2 year old kid, or what?

https://bugs.ch40m1um.qjz9zk/

I'll tell more, there are all sorts of retarded replacements all over the file, like "www.9oo9H"! Google with shmoogle, and so on.

You, with your rep of 3.2K, you still wanna tell me the browser will not broadcast rubbish?

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

For starters, the "rep" on this web site is B*LLSH*T.  You know it!  I know it!  You yourself are amongst the KIDS on this site that REP FARM.  You know it!  I know it!  Everybody else on MSFN knows it!

Second, the ch40m1um.qjz9zk is DODGING THE CLAIM YOU MADE !!!  Everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY is aware of the .qjz9zk.  You missed one, for the record, there is also .9oo91e.qjz9zk.

THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM.  Your claim was that these are BROADCASTED.  THEY ARE NOT BROADCASTED !!!

THEY CANNOT BE BROADCASTED!  You can create a web site with a .com, or a .net. or a .gov, or a .edu.  YOU CANNOT CREATE A .qjz9zk - THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF UNGOOGLED USING THAT "CODE".

The "patches" are PUBLIC DOMAIN.  Anybody can "ungoogle" a Chrome/Chromium fork.  Supermium doesn't create the patches, they use what UNGOOGLED shares PUBLICLY.

 

ps - I don't use the CAPS LOCK, I hold a SHIFT key down and type with a SHIFT key held down, NO CAPS LOCK WAS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST.