VistaLover Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) 8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: because now you have to be signed in to be able to read that forum. OT: Most of the official Pale Moon forum(s) can be accessed and read anonymously ; it's only a small subset that indeed requires an account to be read, among them the "The Bulletin Board/Off-Topic" subforum (it's invisible to those browsing "The Bulletin Board" anonymously ) ... Edited May 21 by VistaLover 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, UCyborg said: So XP is still actively targeted? Unrealistic example, but still, one wrong step and baam! Have upd open, relax all common sense restrictions, and your momma will be able to hack you. A ridiculous video (couldn't stand more than 5 seconds of it, to be true, so maybe there is something to it I haven.t found in over 20 years of XP use). I tremble at the thought. Edited May 20 by dmiranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidao Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 16 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Yep, saw that. Somebody posted a screencap because now you have to be signed in to be able to read that forum. I think it's a fake video, we all know that there have many people still use XP, but most of them doesn't be hacked 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 That and anybody that has ever used Malwarebytes knows that it "detects" things that have nothing to do with "vulnerabilities". It has to find SOMETHING so that the userbase gets that warm fuzzy feeling in their gut. That's how Malwarebytes establishes brand loyalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: That and anybody that has ever used Malwarebytes knows that it "detects" things that have nothing to do with "vulnerabilities". It has to find SOMETHING so that the userbase gets that warm fuzzy feeling in their gut. That's how Malwarebytes establishes brand loyalty. Source: trust me, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 Doesn't detect serial ports on XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 3 hours ago, UCyborg said: Doesn't detect serial ports on XP. It's a new feature to reduce fingerprinting by the means of serial ports. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 A major progress -" involuntary connections to Google services, which will be pared back in response to users' complaints." https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/600 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 That's not a step "forward" for users that want a truly ungoogled variant. ALLOWING involuntary connections to Google services just because the non-ungoogled userbase complains louder than the ungoogled userbase ??? ??? ??? Perhaps "flags" will be added to PREVENT these involuntary connections? Because what's the point of calling something ungoogled if you allow involuntary connections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 19 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: involuntary connections will be "pared back," as there will be fewer of them. 21 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: non-ungoogled userbase Join us, Luke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 3 hours ago, 66cats said: will be "pared back," as there will be fewer of them. Probably, the user isn't a native English speaker, I get this a lot here, but then again, it's an international forum, what else one would expect? @NotHereToPlayGames, in other words, win32ss wrote he will reduce the number of hostile connections, but won't eliminate them all, due to the public requests. Complaints, in this case, mean users aren't happy with the fully Ungoogled version. They still want the Google connections to leak data. Is it clearer? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-H Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 On 5/21/2024 at 9:23 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said: That and anybody that has ever used Malwarebytes knows that it "detects" things that have nothing to do with "vulnerabilities". It has to find SOMETHING so that the userbase gets that warm fuzzy feeling in their gut. That's how Malwarebytes establishes brand loyalty. I have to say as someone who's used Malwarebytes (Premium) for many years now, that I have never been aware of it producing false positives to justify its existence! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 At home, no. At work, we get them quite frequently. They have an entire forum dedicated to reporting false positives - and they are quick to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 19 minutes ago, Saxon said: but won't eliminate them all, due to the public requests. That's what I was afraid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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