feodor2 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 10 hours ago, D.Draker said: One example, CatsXP supported XP up to Chrome 87 (or so), Chrome 87 is far more advanced than FF 68, yet CatsXP had a fully working sandbox under XP, how so? Okey this is not CatsXP, not a chrome at all. What do you mean "fully working", as I know mozilla has push to the firefox the very same cromish "sandbox" (flash and drm for xp) I already told that consider it useless. From the beginning I did only 32bit versions and not bothered with its "sandbox", but if you want I may enable it for х64 and shall see, no point in saving resources there. 1
tinman2000 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 I upgraded to 68.14.7b recently - and everything is working great. But I'm running into issues with websites using Cloudflare. I've attached an example. When I go to this website, Cloudflare goes into its security check. But it just keeps spinning without going any further. A "Stuck here? Send feedback" option does come up but I'm unable to select it. (At this point, the page is unresponsive and I have to shut MyPal down.) I checked with the owner of the website - and he checked with his hosting company. The hosting company just recommended I delete cache and cookies. Unfortunately, that didn't make any difference. Any suggestions?
AstroSkipper Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) @tinman2000 If you had read the last posts of this thread carefully, you would have noticed that Cloudflare does not work in Mypal 68 at the moment. No solutions, no suggestions. Maybe, one of the next Mypal 68 releases will successfully run these superfluous challenges. But I wouldn't count on that. Thanks to Cloudflare! Edited March 4 by AstroSkipper 3
D.Draker Posted March 4 Posted March 4 11 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: Thanks to Cloudflare! The owner of the website determines what level of "protection" is used, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare simply gives the tools to the owner. 3
D.Draker Posted March 4 Posted March 4 12 hours ago, tinman2000 said: I checked with the owner of the website - and he checked with his hosting company. The hosting company just recommended I delete cache and cookies. Unfortunately, that didn't make any difference. He lied to you, the owner simply put the slider to the "maximum protection". Again, Cloudflare could care less what the owner chooses. 3
D.Draker Posted March 4 Posted March 4 12 hours ago, tinman2000 said: But I'm running into issues with websites using Cloudflare. I strongly suggest you all simply ignore those dimwits. let their businesses go bankrupt. Enough of this nonsense. Recently, I was willing to spend several grands on a bag, yet I have problems with their site. I'll think twice now. And looks like they just lost a customer. In details. https://msfn.org/board/topic/186728-chanel-french-bags-website-err_http2_protocol_error-from-my-ip-blocked-from-vpn-too/ 3
AstroSkipper Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) 15 minutes ago, D.Draker said: 33 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said: Thanks to Cloudflare! The owner of the website determines what level of "protection" is used, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare simply gives the tools to the owner. Ok. Thanks to the owners of such websites, their used tools and Cloudflare! In any case, those pseudo challenges and harassments are superfluous. Edited March 4 by AstroSkipper 3
NotHereToPlayGames Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, D.Draker said: The owner of the website determines what level of "protection" is used, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare simply gives the tools to the owner. True! But whether we like it or not, what the website owner is protecting belongs to them as the owner and not to us as the user. No different than Homeowner A leaving the door unlocked 24/7 because the "odds" of somebody turning the doorknob to even check is "low". Versus Homeowner B with the door locked, two deadbolts, a sliding chain, and a shotgun aimed at the entrance with the trigger pulled by a string from anywhere in the house. edit - ie, owners are allowed to protect what they own Edited March 5 by NotHereToPlayGames
D.Draker Posted March 5 Posted March 5 13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: True! But whether we like it or not, what the website owner is protecting belongs to them as the owner and not to us as the user. No different than Homeowner A leaving the door unlocked 24/7 because the "odds" of somebody turning the doorknob to even check is "low". Versus Homeowner B with the door locked, two deadbolts, a sliding chain, and a shotgun aimed at the entrance with the trigger pulled by a string from anywhere in the house. edit - ie, owners are allowed to protect what they own Unlike in your country Armenia, in France sellers are under certain obligations before the customers, for example: they can't refuse to serve basic needs items like soap, condoms, cosmetics, refrigerators, etc. As for the Chanel bags I was going to buy, unfortunately, they can because they belong to the luxury segment. So no, he can't put deadbolts because he registered as a seller and owns a website that he must maintain in accordance with the French laws. And if we speak about that site in particular, the laws of Quebec, which aren't that different because they are an off-spring from France.
AstroSkipper Posted March 5 Posted March 5 7 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: edit - ie, owners are allowed to protect what they own And they should sit on their property until they grow mould. My recommendation is to avoid such websites in general. You don't have to put up with such filth. And I would never visit your "Homeowner B" either. 2
NotHereToPlayGames Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) <OT reply to OT which was in turn a reply to an OT instigated by an OT> 1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said: My recommendation is to avoid such websites in general. That's the FUNNY part! People like to boast how "privacy-conscious" they are. But then they will jump through hoops to be "fingerprinted" to gain access to such websites. 1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said: And I would never visit your "Homeowner B" either. You may already have, without knowing it. Not to the extent of my "exaggeration-for-effect" scenario, of course. Germany has an extremly high crime rate, I have no doubt that Germans are "protecting what they own". https://www.dw.com/en/germany-violent-crime-reaches-15-year-high-report/a-68758122 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country Edited March 5 by NotHereToPlayGames corrected to strikethrough "extremely"... it's all relative...
AstroSkipper Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: <OT reply to OT which was in turn a reply to an OT instigated by an OT> My comment is not off-topic but yours is as usual. I was talking about over-protected websites which do not work in Mypal 68 and which I consider as pure harassments for their potential users. 2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: You may already have, without knowing it. Not to the extent of my "exaggeration-for-effect" scenario, of course. Germany has an extremly high crime rate, I have no doubt that Germans are "protecting what they own". And if you have no idea about Europe and Germany, then you should rather keep silent. That means do not spread such nonsense! BTW, extremly high crime rates are the hallmark of America where everyone owns firearms. In your country, even the teachers are supposed to be armed instead of doing something about the mental impoverishment of the youth in your country. The others can no longer be helped anyway. But long off-topic short. You should not pollute a thread which is about a browser you do not even use. Edited March 5 by AstroSkipper Update of content 2
NotHereToPlayGames Posted March 5 Posted March 5 1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-violent-crime-reaches-15-year-high-report/a-68758122 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
NotHereToPlayGames Posted March 5 Posted March 5 25 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said: extremly high crime rates are the hallmark of America Agreed! But that doesn't mean America is the "only" country with this hallmark. Moving on... "Toodles"...
feodor2 Posted April 6 Posted April 6 On 12/18/2024 at 9:16 PM, dapgo said: are you using Multi-Account Containers? IMO isolate cookies is musttohave Though v8.0.1 is compatible with FF67, it produces an error during installing "...appears to be corrupt" set extensions.allowPrivateBrowsingByDefault to false and it will install
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now