Jump to content

360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

Humming Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dixel

Dixel

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

does anyone know what minimum version of Chromium is needed to use the web currently without many problems

It's simple . If you want/need TLS 1.3 , then 57 is the first to support it . But it's too old for heavy "modern" java websites ...

If you do online shopping and banking , I would say 79 is the bare minimum here , in Europe. For example , I do shop at a famous German hardware shop , they did a "renovation" on their website , it is ugly as hell , of course (android/apfel/win10 in one package with acid colours) and the website just won't load correctly on anything lower than 79 , spoofing UA won't help ! It's because of java. But works just fine with 360EE ver. 13. From my experience ,  also : twitter crashes with anything lower than 80.  Youtube works weirdly fine with 55 (!) , if I spoof UA with my special programme . Local Dutch websites are a mixed bag , but also need at least 69.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dixel

Dixel

Posted
Posted (edited)

BTW , finally ! Today I've noticed youtube choppy video with 360 v.13 ! For those who are wondering , it's very simple , it has nothing to do with this browser itself , youtube started to serve some of the videos in AV1 (similar to H265) format wich is not supported by my dated PC which I use for the internet only . Even if I turn the hardware acceleration on , my 10 years old GTX titan is simply not able to decode H265 and the CPU usage goes up to 60-70% on all four cores , resulting in a very poor playback even for 1080p videos ! 

EDIT . The same is with VP9 codec.

Edited by Dixel
new info
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
D.Draker

D.Draker

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

It's the dog chasing its tail.

And what do you mean by that ? Is there an answer to this specific warning in your reply ? If it doesn't bother you , doesn't mean the others should ignore . As for the post , I'm just confirming exactly the same issue the other members have mentioned here earlier . I'm having my first days with this very browser . I have fully updated certificates and this warning "other resources which are not secure" maybe ad sites which it connects to , but it's just my guess. Why am I not seeing this warning on youtube , for example ?  Any ideas ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

And what do you mean by that ?

You site that MSFN shows up as "insecure" but did you comapare to ANY other browser?

Did BOTH browsers say "insecure" or did only ONE?

 

I will try to expand on my view of this issue - I am not always the best at communication "skills" but we all have our days, lol.

I seem to be in the minority but that does not make me "wrong", please allow me to explain because SSL has become a GIGANTIC topic of late here at MSFN.

 

So your browser is claiming to be "insecure" on MSFN and the solution isn't some form of "I can not log in because I can not trust MSFN" but rather "What modifications can I make to my operating system or browser for MSFN to 'appear' "secure" "?

To the point of users creating "cert-packs" and moderators yanking them for MSFN Rule Violations  --  seriously, ponder that for a second.

Isn't this the EXACT OPPOSITE of "secure"  --  to blindly trust an MSFN forum member that created their own "solution" then publicly distrubuted it for others to install onto their computers?

 

My official XP x86 SP3 and my official XP x64 SP2 both show MSFN as "secure".

So if another user on a different XP says "insecure", that basically tells me that the user broke something - installed some "cert-pack" that I did not, installed POS updates that I did not, hacked their kernel that I did not, et cetera.

They may have had the best of intentions, but the end result was that they broke something when they inteded to try to fix something.

But you still cannot deny that my XP says "secure" and the hacked-with-best-of-intentions version of XP says "insecure".

Maybe the hack was to get YouTube to show as secure and the hack fixed that - but broke MSFN.

So is that hack to be trusted or not (I'm on the not-side).

 

Your profile cites Vista Business x64  --  can you install a brand spanking new VirtualBox VM and see if it shows MSFN as "secure"?

That would reveal that something is "broken" in your host Vista.

 

Generally speaking, to me at least, when a web browser says "insecure", it is NOT the web browser that is "insecure", it is the OPERATING SYSTEM.

That is, unless I can show a DIFFERENT web browser on the SAME computer to show "secure" - which I'm not 100%, but I don't think I've ever witnessed that scenario.

 

Hope that helps.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted

Tracked down and reloaded my Vista VM.

It's dated 2019 and official Vista support ended in 2017, so it "should" be fully updated - but I am not 100% on this as I use my Win7 VM much more than my Vista VM.

At any rate, here are some findings (these are from v13 360Chrome build 2206 when on Vista VM)  --

MSFN  ==  insecure connection

Wikipedia  ==  insecure connection

Google  ==  insecure connection

Roytam's rtfreesoft blog  ==  insecure connection

Chromium woolyss (source for ungoogled-chromium)  ==  insecure connection

browseraudit.com (a recent test site of recent rave)  ==  insecure connection

Base Mark 3.0 (another common test site)  ==  insecure connection

microsoft.com (I find this one particularly funny)  ==  insecure connection

cloudfare.com  ==  insecure connection

mozilla.org (equally funny)  ==  insecure connection

linkedin.com  ==  insecure connection

adobe.com  ==  insecure connection

msn.com  ==  insecure connection

reuters.com  ==  insecure connection

opera.com (browser download, not a fat lady singing)  ==  insecure connection

cnn.com  ==  insecure connection

bbc.com  ==  insecure connection

nytimes.com  ==  insecure connection

bloomberg.com  ==  insecure connection

washingtonpost.com  ==  insecure connection

 

ALL of the above show as "secure" in v13 360Chrome build 2206 on XP x64 SP2.

ALL of the above show as "secure" in Serpent/Basilisk v52.90 (2021-07-30) when on Vista VM - but as insecure in v13 360Chrome build 2206 when on Vista VM (despite being "secure" on XP x64 SP2).

 

Not sure "where" that gets us, but I offer it to the discussion at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beansmuggler

beansmuggler

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

That is, unless I can show a DIFFERENT web browser on the SAME computer to show "secure" - which I'm not 100%, but I don't think I've ever witnessed that scenario.

Im not the guy replied to, but this quote describes my situation atm. Ecosia and Discord have acceptable certificates in Firefox, but not 360chrome v13.

Edited by beansmuggler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted

And your profile says Win10 x64.

Ecosia and Discord both show as "secure" for me (XP x64 SP2, v13 360Chrome build 2206).

So this really is just another example of where the same exact browser gives different results in different operating systems.

Unless I am missing something, that still points to the OPERATING SYSTEM and not the browser.

 

Let's try a different route (I am trying to be of assistance, honestly!, despite my personal conviction that a brower's "padlock" reveals NOTHING about my level of "security", it's a girl in the forest cyring wolf when there is no wolf or crying fire in a movie theater when there is no fire or a car alarm that is set off by a cat sniffing the tire - to each their own, different strokes for different folks).

360Chrome is based on Chrome v86 and this dated October 2020.

So what happens for Vista and Win10 for Firefox version 80.0.1 (released September 2020).

ie, does a Firefox version release around the same time as Chrome v86 show the same results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can't help but be curious (and at the risk of opening Pandora's Box but in the spirit of leaving no stone unturned) - 360Chrome was developed, at its core, to backport browser functionality specifically to XP.

So I guess I find myself of little-to-no surprise that 360Chrome is showing sites as "secure" when in XP but "mileage may vary" when that browser, designed for XP, is tested in Vista and 10.

So why even run 360Chrome in Vista or 10 when there are "non-backport" browsers available on those platforms?

Vista I kinda get, it too is an "expired" OS.

Please don't misread, I'm asking because I am curious.

Is it because XP has a larger following than Vista and nobody out there is "backporting" specificly for the Vista Audience?

Forgive the curiosity, I'm just trying to place myself in your shoes - my shoes are XP so I understand the path that I walk in those shoes.

 

edit - although, having asked that question, I should also disclose this  --  I run Mypal 27.9.4 on my work computer and it runs Win10 x64, I do that for RAM/CPU purposes and for "lighter" extensions.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted

Not sure how this progresses the conversation any, but ALL of those sites listed above show as "secure" for me in v13 360Chrome build 2206, Mypal 27.9.4, NM27, NM28, Basilisk, and BNavigator.

And show as "secure" on my XP x86 SP3 and my XP x64 SP2.

So something in your "SP4" or your "post-SP4" broke something.

I have neither of those installed on my XP x86 SP3.

My XP x86 XP3 is built from this  --  XPSP3_QFE_UpdatePack for Windows XP Post-SP3 20180109 ... and this --  [Addon] Internet Explorer 8 for 32-bit XP 1.5.42

HOWEVER, my install DVD says that I used IE8 1.5.38 and it has since been updated to 1.5.42.

 

The differences being  --

Version 1.5.42 2018-09-17 —5eraph
Added KB4457426, replaces KB4343205.

Version 1.5.41 2018-08-19 —5eraph
Added KB4343205, replaces KB4339093.

Version 1.5.40 2018-07-15 —5eraph
Added KB4339093, replaces KB4230450.

Version 1.5.39 2018-06-13 —5eraph
Added KB4230450, replaces KB4103768.

 

KB4230450  ==  POSReady...  I do not install POS...  https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4230450

KB4339093  ==  POSReady...  I do not install POS...  https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4339093

KB4343205  ==  POSReady...  I do not install POS...  https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4343205

KB4457426  ==  POSReady...  I do not install POS...  https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4457426

 

I strongly suspect, and I'm not trying to start a lengthy debate, but all the facts seem to point to this  --  POSReady2009 is what broke your security certificates!

I think that's where we need to start next  --  to everyone that is seeing MSFN as "insecure" when using Chromium-based browsers on XP x86 SP3, did you install POSReady2009 hotfixes?

Again, I am trying to help, so I hope it is coming across that way.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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