NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 12 Author Posted January 12 I'm done here. I have confidence in our readers being SMART ENOUGH to see right through the little "conflict" you are trying to create here. You clearly have no clue just WHY the Ungoogled Team uses .qjz9zk. There is no "broadcasting". Moving on... Your Lemmings will be by shortly to REP FARM your "likes". Congratulations!
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2025 at 2:38 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said: 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. For starters, there are rules, and in contrast to you and another member starting with "V", I have to follow them. I could care less whether it was Shift, Capslock, or your stuck finger, you didn't have to write a poem about that. Broadcasting to odd links has been known for decades, including the ungoogled Chromium fork. The question is, whether it's the case with your edits of Monkey! "Now I got a new notification: Blocked attempted request to: http://www.95tat1c.qjz9zk/generate_204 Immediately after opening https://translate.google.com. I was logged in in Google (through web). What I'm wondering is that, is this normal behaviour? Do you guys too get these notifications regularly?" https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/104#issuecomment-254244492 2
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 "Okay, so now I can replicate one notification: Go to https://mcdonalds.fi/ Get notification Blocked attempted request to: http://www.95tat1c.qjz9zk/generate_204 This notification comes only with HTTPS connection. I'm not logged into Google, so it can be replicated in incognito mode too. This is what I see when I go to that page (due to the invalid certificate): Your connection is not private Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.mcdonalds.fi (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID Back to safety HIDE ADVANCED This server could not prove that it is www.mcdonalds.fi; its security certificate is from a248.e.akamai.net. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection. Proceed to www.mcdonalds.fi (unsafe)" Link 1
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2025 at 2:38 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said: Everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY is aware of the .qjz9zk. You missed one, for the record, there is also .9oo91e.qjz9zk. How about that? "Get notification Blocked attempted request to: https://support.9oo91e.qjz9zk/chrome/?p=e_awsnap_rl" https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/issues/104#issuecomment-256545702 1
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, D.Draker said: Do you guys too get these notifications regularly? I have never seen that notification! Never! But I also did not use Ungoogled Chromium in 2016 when that issue was reported. I cannot verify the .fi link from here at work. I would be sent to HR for clicking such a link. Technically, I have NO USE for any web site that isn't a .com, .net. .edu, .org, or .gov. There's probably an exception or two, though none come to mind.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 And for what it is worth, THANK YOU, "that" is the type of discussion/proof/documentation that will serve us all well !!! But can you find one that is more recent than from 2016 ?
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 12 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: And for what it is worth, THANK YOU, "that" is the type of discussion/proof/documentation that will serve us all well !!! But can you find one that is more recent than from 2016 ? You're welcome. Why does 2016 matter, if the patch didn't change to this day? It still patches into the retardness. The links are the same. And you still patch Monkey like in the 80s, you wrote yourself. 1
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I have NO USE for any web site that isn't a .com, .net. .edu, .org, or .gov. And what about https://youtu.be/ where you listen to the music with your Monkey? 1
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 (edited) 13 minutes ago, D.Draker said: if the patch didn't change to this day That PORTION of the patch may not have changed, along with my tt -> xx, BUT the way that the BROWSER renders HAS CHANGED. Nobody that uses Ungoogled has ever cited that notification/warning that you reference from a 2016 bug report. I have *NEVER* seen that notification/warning. **NEVER** So yeah, a 2016 citing is IRRELEVANT. If you have this notification/warning using anything *newer* than Chrome/Chromium v109 or so, please screencap it! I cannot visit the .fi link from here at work. I'll go ahead and visit AT HOME, but I would bet your-never-wrong to I'm-never-wrong that a MODERN browser does not have the same BUG that was reported in 2016! Edited January 13 by NotHereToPlayGames
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, D.Draker said: And what about https://youtu.be/ where you listen to the music with your Monkey? You have me confused with somebody else. I do not use youtu-dot-be. I do use YOUTUBE.com. The Tampermonkey scripts that I sometimes post "do". That doesn't mean that I've ever visited a dot-be-wanna-be. I use YOUTUBE.com.
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: That PORTION of the patch may not have changed, along with my tt -> xx, BUT the way that the BROWSER renders HAS CHANGED. Nobody that uses Ungoogled has ever cited that notification/warning that you reference from a 2016 bug report. I have *NEVER* seen that notification/warning. **NEVER** So yeah, a 2016 citing is IRRELEVANT. If you have this notification/warning using anything *newer* than Chrome/Chromium v109 or so, please screencap it! I cannot visit the .fi link from here at work. I'll go ahead and visit AT HOME, but I would bet your-never-wrong to I'm-never-wrong that a MODERN browser does not have the same BUG that was reported in 2016! You have me confused with somebody else. I don't use Ungoogled. I use Cent browser. And Tampermonkey, that I sometimes use with it, is edited to zeroes, just like I wrote about the lytics. That doesn't mean that I've never tried a wanna-be privacy oriented Ungoogled. And as I wrote, I'm against such odd edits, tell me, why the creator doesn't edit at least https to hppps or whatever you did in the seventies? He keeps working links to which it can be knocked into!
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, D.Draker said: I use Cent browser. You are vulnerable to bugs discovered in 2016. 3 minutes ago, D.Draker said: to which it can be knocked into You are *dense*. They cannot be knocked into. This is 2025. Not 2016. 4 minutes ago, D.Draker said: whatever you did in the seventies Your next post is going to cite the sixties?
D.Draker Posted January 13 Posted January 13 10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: You are vulnerable to bugs discovered in 2016. No, but nice try lol, it got fixes in 2024. But the engine is getting dated, you're right, even though Monkey still works fine with it. https://www.centbrowser.com/history.html 11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Your next post is going to cite the sixties? Prolly, as you keep telling you're old, on the other hand, sixties would be too far away, they din't have the widely available internet.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 1 minute ago, D.Draker said: it got fixes in 2024 That doesn't say much. We both hate hate hate Firefox. It took Firefox *25 years* to fix a "tooltip bug". Only 22 years if you count from the SECOND bug report years after the first was never fixed. Despite having "fixes" posted DOZENS of times per year during those 25 years. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40431444 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/22-year-old-firefox-tooltip-bug-fixed-in-a-few-lines-offering-hope-to-us-all/ My Ungoogled Chromium v122 is not even ONE YEAR OLD, it too was last patched/fixed/upgrade in 2024. I "can" use NEWER. I'm just NOT INTERESTED in anything newer. That day will be forced upon me one of these days.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 5 hours ago, D.Draker said: Go to https://mcdonalds.fi/ Get notification Blocked attempted request to: http://www.95tat1c.qjz9zk/generate_204 Cannot replicate. Here, Ungoogled v122 redirects https://mcdonalds.fi to https://www.mcdonalds.fi with no certficate error on the www.mcdonalds.fi and no blocked attempted request. I could probably replicate if I installed a version of Ungoogled from 2016, but WHY, you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now