Humming Owl Posted July 19, 2021 Author Posted July 19, 2021 58 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said: Can you tell me if this was @Humming Owl's v9, v11, or v12? I'm sure that test was not done with my modified versions.
Gansangriff Posted July 19, 2021 Posted July 19, 2021 @ArcticFoxie, @Humming Owl Well, it was in fact the modified V11 version. The one that opened MSFN as a default page. ".adra" is my local network behind my router. Give me a day, then I'll examine that further. 1
D.Draker Posted July 19, 2021 Posted July 19, 2021 @Gansangriff , I hope you will help the author to eliminate those connections and in that case , do you think this could be a good alternative to firefox , which I 'm currently on ? I want to ditch firefox because it leaks data to yandex . 1
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 19, 2021 Posted July 19, 2021 On 7/17/2021 at 8:30 PM, Humming Owl said: The "en_skin.srx" was removed but the contents of it where replaced on the "iframe.srx" and "skin.srx" files. Hmm, interesting route and you had me thinking of doing the same for my rebuild. I think for now I am going to keep iframse.srx and skin.srx untouched but may end up going this route down the road. I kind of like how if you "missed" something in en_skin.srx, the GUI has a "fallback" and pulls from iframe.srx and skin.srx.
Gansangriff Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 @Humming Owl Please measure the network traffic on the startup of the modified V11. There is definetly some nonsense going on here! Obviously the gibberish "words", which are searched over the network, are randomly generated, so looking different this time. Off Topic: @D.Draker Currently, the 360EE isn't my taste. It may use less RAM in total, but it doesn't perform as good as New Moon on this dated Windows XP machine. I think, that's because of NoScript in New Moon. If I would allow scripts everywhere, New Moon wouldn't be quick either. Then there is this Google interface with checkboxes for promising optimisations, quick download modes, accounts for your webbrowser... no, that's not a software that feels trustworthy for me. Which doesn't mean, something proper can be built out of it! Firefox leaking to Yandex? Maybe you can get into setting up a firewall somewhere on your computer or in your router. A filter list. On a current computer, maybe have a look at Pale Moon, if it can do everything for you. 1
UCyborg Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 Do V9 - V12 also have following problems of V13: slow video rendering beyond the slowness due to lack of GPU decoding, inability to display certain characters (emojis and various other symbols) and inability to identify with a certificate on sites that require them? Chrome 49 doesn't have these problems, although I couldn't test video playback with a better resolution video on that version, just those here which played smoothly in fullscreen unlike with EE, not aware of any other video site that would work though.
Humming Owl Posted July 20, 2021 Author Posted July 20, 2021 (edited) Maybe that connection you got is related to a very first run of the browser on a clean OS. @ArcticFoxie I need your help with this, if you can of course. I want you to run the browser (v11) from a clean install of Win7 or WinXP with TcpLogView and WireShark to see if the connection appear. I will also do this but I want to do several tests to see if this occurrence is not that common. WireShark --> https://www.wireshark.org/ Version 3.2 was the last version that was compatible with Win7. Version 1.10 was the last version that was compatible with WinXP. https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChIntroPlatforms.html Cheers. Edited July 20, 2021 by Humming Owl Added WireShark download links
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 Will report back this evening. A source for WireShark versions (including .paf portables) -- https://2.na.dl.wireshark.org/win32/all-versions/
Dixel Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 4 hours ago, UCyborg said: Do V9 - V12 also have following problems of V13: slow video rendering beyond the slowness due to lack of GPU decoding, inability to display certain characters (emojis and various other symbols) and inability to identify with a certificate on sites that require them? Chrome 49 doesn't have these problems, although I couldn't test video playback with a better resolution video on that version, just those here which played smoothly in fullscreen unlike with EE, not aware of any other video site that would work though. 1 - No emojis are due to the browser's blocking remote fonts (which is a nice thing) . They are trying to make a privacy-oriented browser , you know . I did a 13th version for myself from scratch and I too blocked it. Also, blocked web-gl , web-rtc and other numerous things like UA-hints , for example. ( a very nasty thing !) 2- I use a very dated PC for the internet . CPU is from 2008 (quad) ! (soon to be 14 years old!) . And I do not see any lags , even though hardware acceleration is blocked completely due to disabled fingerprinting. Perhaps it has something to do with XP ? (I gather you're on XP , right ?) 3 - Problem with certificates can be solved with a cert. pack by @legacyfan , it includes the .bat . You do not even need SHA-2. But I'm afraid it could be deleted already . Check his account. 2
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 For starters, I had to edit Preferences to open an empty page on startup - never been a big fan of the browser opening ANYTHING on startup. Launched for First Run, closed, launched a 2nd time, closed, launched a 3rd time, copied logs below. TcpLogView -- Event Time Event Type Local Address Remote Address Remote Host Name Local Port Remote Port Process ID Process Name Process Path Process User Remote IP Country 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM Open 10.0.2.15 142.250.191.131 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 1064 443 1480 360chrome.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\360ChromePortable v11\Chrome\Application\360chrome.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 4:39:25 PM Close 10.0.2.15 142.250.191.131 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 1064 443 1480 360chrome.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\360ChromePortable v11\Chrome\Application\360chrome.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator NetworkTrafficView -- Ethernet Type IP Protocol Source Address Destination Address Source Port Destination Port Service Name Status Packets Count Total Packets Size Total Data Size Data Speed Maximum Data Speed Average Packet Size Maximum Packet Size First Packet Time Last Packet Time Duration Latency Process ID Process Filename TCP Ack TCP Push TCP Reset TCP Syn TCP Fin TCP SACK SACK Permitted Maximum Segment Size TCP Window Size TCP Window Scale TTL Source Country Destination Country IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1063 1900 4 820 708 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:09 PM 00:00:02.347 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 IPv4 ICMP 10.0.2.2 10.0.2.15 12 672 432 56.0 56 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:53 PM 00:00:46.355 0 0 0 0 0 255 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 50913 53 domain 1 61 33 61.0 61 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 128 IPv4 UDP 208.67.220.220 10.0.2.15 53 50913 domain 1 77 49 77.0 77 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 1480 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 64 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 55622 53 domain 1 74 46 74.0 74 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM 00:00:00.000 248 TcpLogView.exe 0 0 0 0 0 128 IPv4 UDP 208.67.220.220 10.0.2.15 53 55622 domain 1 112 84 112.0 112 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM 00:00:00.000 248 TcpLogView.exe 0 0 0 0 0 64 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1065 1900 4 820 708 0.2 KiB/Sec 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:35 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:39 PM 00:00:03.155 1400 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 IPv4 UDP 10.0.2.15 239.255.255.250 1066 1900 4 820 708 0.2 KiB/Sec 205.0 205 7/20/2021 4:39:50 PM 7/20/2021 4:39:53 PM 00:00:03.499 540 360chrome.exe 0 0 0 0 0 1 DNSQuerySniffer -- Host Name Port Number Query ID Request Type Request Time Response Time Duration Response Code Records Count A CNAME AAAA NS MX SOA PTR SRV TEXT Source Address Destination Address IP Country www.gstatic.com 50913 3263 A 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.709 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.733 23 ms Ok 1 142.250.191.131 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 131.191.250.142.in-addr.arpa 55622 8502 PTR 7/20/2021 4:39:07 PM.968 7/20/2021 4:39:08 PM.007 39 ms Ok 1 ord38s29-in-f3.1e100.net 10.0.2.15 208.67.220.220 Not familiar with Wireshark and don't see a way to copy and paste and don't really have the time to learn it at the moment. Pastes above aren't formatted very well, but taking screencaps, uploading to Dropbox, then embedding a shared link on the forum just takes too d@mn long at the moment.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 ps1 - no hosts file for above logs, fully updated Win XP x86 SP3 (by fully updated, I *exclude* "pos" updates). ps2 - a "gstatic" connection for FIRST RUN ONLY is normal and to be expected on Chrome/Chromium-based browsers. Can it be nixed? Not really sure, to be honest, it doesn't "overly" concern me as a first-run ONLY connection. From what I have read on it, it's more of an ATTEMPT for Google to somehow track Market Share but that the method is flawed and useless, but my readings on it are extremely limited. But enough so that at least for now, that one-time first-run-only connection is "harmless". So what if Google has "data" that an open source WebKit v86 engine was installed at such-and-such IP Address *seventy times* since September 2020.
XPerceniol Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 59 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said: Will report back this evening. A source for WireShark versions (including .paf portables) -- https://2.na.dl.wireshark.org/win32/all-versions/ I admit, I've never used wireshark and I'm not shamed to admit it, but it never to late to learn, I guess. I'm always late and (more than) a dollar short.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 (edited) Basilisk First Run connections (July 3rd download, I don't download every week), no pages visited, no extensions installed, just extracted and launched for the very first time and these are all of the connections it made (with my hosts file re-enabled) -- I see a TON of "crap" in this list and frankly trust 360Chrome over and above Basilisk if we are to go by "first run connections". Let's keep it all in perspective, I don't think I've seen any "reports" to Roytam about these "connections". TcpLogView -- Event Time Event Type Local Address Remote Address Remote Host Name Local Port Remote Port Process ID Process Name Process Path Process User Remote IP Country 7/20/2021 5:14:18 PM Open 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 localhost 1026 1025 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:18 PM Open 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 localhost 1025 1026 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:30 PM Open 10.0.2.15 40.89.244.232 1028 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:14:30 PM Open 10.0.2.15 104.22.12.159 1027 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:04 PM Close 10.0.2.15 40.89.244.232 1028 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 72.21.91.29 1031 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 35.244.181.201 201.181.244.35.bc.googleusercontent.com 1030 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:15:29 PM Open 10.0.2.15 184.26.42.74 a184-26-42-74.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com 1032 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:25 PM Close 10.0.2.15 104.22.12.159 1027 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:26 PM Close 10.0.2.15 72.21.91.29 1031 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:17:26 PM Close 10.0.2.15 184.26.42.74 a184-26-42-74.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com 1032 80 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:18:31 PM Close 10.0.2.15 35.244.181.201 201.181.244.35.bc.googleusercontent.com 1030 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator 7/20/2021 5:20:59 PM Open 10.0.2.15 104.21.48.45 1033 443 1612 basilisk.exe C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20210703-e29e57e-uxp-72d0b8670-xpmod\basilisk\basilisk.exe WINXPPRO\Administrator Edited July 20, 2021 by ArcticFoxie
XPerceniol Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 38 minutes ago, Dixel said: ...They are trying to make a privacy-oriented browser , you know . I did a 13th version for myself from scratch and I too blocked it. Also, blocked web-gl , web-rtc and other numerous things like UA-hints , for example. ( a very nasty thing ! I like the fact that you are leaning more towards privacy and getting rid of the spying aspect(s) of chromium in general. As I've stated before, I realize we need this browser. I have (practically) everything blocked (web-gl , web-rtc , dom-storage , local cache) in FF as well so I'm used to it for the sake of privacy. Just would rather have it that way. 1
Dixel Posted July 20, 2021 Posted July 20, 2021 3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said: - never been a big fan of the browser opening ANYTHING on startup. Wouldn't it easier to use "no first run" flag ? Perhaps it will help with your gstatic connections. Do not get mad at me , it's just a suggestion. 2
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