Jump to content

360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Humming Owl said:

https://www.codevat.com/articles/chromium-background-connections/ (See the "Additional Tweaks and Details" section)

Further down in that link is this  --  browser.has_seen_welcome_page = true

I wonder if that command line will prevent the theme popup in whichever version has that theme popup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 7/29/2021 at 8:23 PM, ArcticFoxie said:

Here is the Regshot for your v13 build 2250 (again with bold highlights for items of concern)  --

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Here is a list of modifications that I think could do something to those registry changes. They are in "chrome.dll".

Replace:

- "ESENT.dll" by 00 hexadecimal values.

- "Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\TypedUrls" (Unicode) by 00 hexadecimal values.

- all "\360\" entries (Unicode) by dots.

- all "tracing" entries by dots. 

Try them and tell me what happens. I believe some of the "tracing" ones were involved with the chinese addresses that were already replaced.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not comfortable axing esent.dll just because we see it listed in a Regshot for 360Chrome but not for ungoogled-chromium.

Chromium does include esent.dll in several of its source files, I found three without digging very deep  --

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/6cef2c845972448fac96269c0eebf109c65249fd/chrome/utility/BUILD.gn

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/build/+/refs/heads/main/config/win/BUILD.gn

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4be2698e4784b68198d1062a54942ae232c57c24/chrome/BUILD.gn

On top of that, ungoogled-chromium's chrome.dll has esent.dll listed in the same EXACT "relative" position as 360Chrome - not by offset, but esent.dll is listed immediately following wininet.dll.

I suggest keeping esent.dll and don't think we should axe things just for the sake of "warm fuzzies".

 

My two cents...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting!  What did you test in?  I'm showing the same exact browser can score vastly different in XP x64 versus 7 x86 (RAM does not seem to make a difference).

Some of the test result warnings indicate that internet connection speed could result in a warning.

None of my computers are wired "direct" and all are "wireless" with d/l at 28-34 Mbps and u/l at 21-26 Mbps  --  that should be fast enough but I would be curious if warnings differ on "direct" versus "wireless".

The only critical I could find (without spending the entire day running tests) was ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 (ran it twice and got same numbers both times).

 

I'm showing the following as reference [listed in increasing order of warnings]  --

BNavigator v0.9.7846a1 (20210730) [XP x64 main PC]  ==  4 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Humming Owl's Modified v11.0.2251.0 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  7 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

New Moon v28.10.4a1 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC]  ==  8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC]  ==  8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Humming Owl's Modified v9.5.0.138 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Humming Owl's Modified v12.0.1592.0 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Humming Owl's Modified v13.0.2250.0 (dated July 29) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Firefox v90.0.2 x86 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

my v13 build 2206 v3 [XP x64 main PC]  ==  12 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

my v13 build 2206 v3 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  14 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

my v13 build 1054 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  16 warnings, 0 critical, 35 skipped

BNavigator v0.9.7846a1 (20210730) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  23 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

New Moon v28.10.4a1 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  27 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  27 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Mypal v27.9.4 [XP x64 main PC]  ==  28 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

Mypal v27.9.4 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  31 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC]  ==  32 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  35 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 4GB RAM]  ==  35 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped

 

I got critical warnings on the following  --

ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM]  ==  18 warnings, 1 critical, 20 skipped

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well on Windows 10 x64, for me Firefox 90.0.2 x64 scored 9 warnings, 0 critical, 28 skipped.
Edge 92.0.902.62 got 16 warnings, 1 critical, 20 skipped. (The critical failure was "cookie set by JavaScript should not be sent over HTTP".)
Quite reassuring in a way that a browser that hasn't been updated for three years on an operating system that hasn't been updated for two years (with POSReady updates) seems to be giving one of the best results!
:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already deleted my XP x86 SP2 VM and kinda see no point in reinstalling it.

I've also noticed that the warning count will vary slightly from one run to the next even in the same operating system.

It personally doesn't surprise me that XP gets better results than 7 and that 7 and 10 score pretty much the same.

 

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win XP x86 SP3 (no POS updates) VM with 2GB RAM - first run ==  7 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.  (an update nag screen popped up midway through this test so will run it twice)

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win XP x86 SP3 (no POS updates) VM with 2GB RAM - second run ==  5 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - first run ==  9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.  (another d@mn nag screen so I'll run this test twice also)

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - second run ==  9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.  (d@mn nag screen popped up again!)

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - third run (waited for d@mn nag screen then ran test)  ==  11 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 10 x86 LTSB VM with 2GB RAM - first run (waited for d@mn nag screen then ran test)  ==  9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped  (d@mn nag screen popped up a SECOND TIME midway through the test)

Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 10 x86 LTSB VM with 2GB RAM - second run (I think that d@mn nag screen will stay away this time)  ==  9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped.  (yeah, no nag screen)

 

Warning count will definitely deviate from one run to the next.

Not sure why all of these showed 20 skipped when @Dave-H was able to get a 0 skipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

5 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Operating system makes a HUGE difference on that test.

@IXOYE is on XP SP2.

Warnings on XP can be 3 to 6 times higher on 7, haven't tested anything in 10.

I know it is labeled as a "browser audit", but it says more about your operating system then it does about your browser.

Test result  xp x86 sp2 ,P4-3Ghz-2 Go Ram. ADSL-d/l at 8 Mbps , u/l at 1 Mbps, connection with prehistoric modem USB :)

Humming Owl's Modified v13.0.2250.0 (dated July 29)
Passed 283 ,Warning 53 ,Critical 7 ,Skipped 61
 

ArcticFoxie v13.0.2206.0 V2,V3
Passed 368 ,Warning 16 ,Critical 0 ,Skipped 20
 

Mypal 29.3 = New moon 28.10.4 a1
Passed 379 ,Warning 5 ,Critical 0 ,Skipped 20
 

Edited by IXOYE
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks.

I'm going to reinstall XP x86 SP2 just for the sake of curiosity - I'd like to rule out @IXOYE's "prehistoric modem"  :whistle:

Is that "prehistoric modem" why you won't upgrade to SP3?

I do know that I compared SP2 and SP3 "performance" way WAY back when SP3 was released, I didn't see any benefit to staying with SP2.

do know that POS updates broke several of my apps, but I just reverted to SP3 with zero POS and haven't dug into it any further (likely won't, as far as that goes).

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I win with 401 passed, 3 warnings, 0 critical, 0 skipped @ Pale Moon 29.2.1 x86 @ Win10 x64 10.0.19042.985. Same result on Manjaro Linux updated June 2021 and x64 build of Pale Moon 29.2.1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great wireless, I drop to right around 28-31 d/l on average when on wireless.

My wired is 231 Mbps d/l and 24 Mbps u/l.

Here is my wired results for my v13 build 2206 v3 on Win10 x64 LTSB with 8 GB RAM and i5 @ 2.4GHz  --  results

Still 12 warnings which does match my XP x64 on wireless.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...