ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.2044 rebuild 2

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I have zero issues in running in Vista.  This is not an extended kernel Vista and I doubt I will be able to test any extended kernel (they have their place, they're just not for me, both "sides" are perfectly valid).

Please indicate what real-time protection you are using that reported that error because it is a valid discussion to either a) "pass" that real-time protection by improving my release, or b) prove the report is a false-positive and leave the release as-is.

[Cocodile]

It's a 32-bit Vista, I have the same as @Dixel, on 64bit. Maybe the file needs to be scanned, like they suggested?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I already knew you would.  I'm still waiting for the 3rd member of the Vista Group to also show up.

If we truly want this fixed, I need to know what real-time protection is telling you this because I have no issues in 32bit Vista as my screencap above shows.

I went out of my way to download and install Vista.  Not much more I can do here without knowing what real-time protection is providing this error.

Edited October 14, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 I'm still waiting for the 3rd member of the Vista Group to also show up.

I think he wrote he doesn't use this browser anymore, if by the 3rd member of Vista x64 you meant your (and our) favourite member @D.Draker.

And as I already wrote, I use the original 2044 build with the file crap load removed (I blocked the malicious connections via firewall).

The original version runs good'n'fast without virus warnings.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'm downloading Vista x64 as we speak.

I'm 100% confident before even installing it that my release will run in it also.  I really need more details on what real-time "protection" is throwing this warning.

But at the same time, if it's only the Vista Group that doesn't really use my releases nearly as much as several other MSFN Members, then I have to feel this discussion is kind of just "wasted time".

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'm downloading Vista x64 as we speak.

I'm 100% confident before even installing it that my release will run in it also.  I really need more details on what real-time "protection" is throwing this warning.

But at the same time, if it's only the Vista Group that doesn't really use my releases nearly as much as several other MSFN Members, then I have to feel this discussion is kind of just "wasted time".

Thank you for your concern, but I'm not interested in the outcome, as I've said, the original version with "favourite" runs perfectly fine, so I'm not currently looking for the solution.

Whatever check for the custom modified files there is, it's good, I guess.

Thank you, again.

 

[Jody Thornton]

7 minutes ago, Cocodile said:

Thank you for your concern, but I'm not interested in the outcome, as I've said, the original version with "favourite" runs perfectly fine, so I'm not currently looking for the solution.

Whatever check for the custom modified files there is, it's good, I guess.

Thank you, again.

 

You're still on that "favourite" business?  Wow, I've never seen the Queen's English requirement be such a big deal for anybody.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Vista x64 won't install anyway and I'm not about to install it outside of a VirtualBox VM.  I run an older version of VirtualBox and have no need to upgrade and will not be installing Vista x64 on real hardware.

There comes a point where we have to regard reports as "naysaying" versus "productive".  I don't think any of the Vista Group really truly runs 360Chrome outside of just a "surface curiosity" anyway.

We already basically "hijacked" the thread for a real-time protection that is simply not part of x86 Vista out-of-the-box and no evidence provided by the x64 Vista Group on just what caused the error.

Almost looks like an "agenda" to me.  Again, I'm willing to fix if I am provided with the means to recreate.  As is, I've demonstrated my release to work in Vista x86.  I may try x64 again tomorrow, if I'm bored.

If I am provided with what caused the error, I am willing to seek a fix.  Other than that, the userbase is too small as is to spend more time on this.

Let's face it, those of us (myself included!) that use 360Chrome on a daily basis as our everyday default web browser, are not going to be steered away from it by an "error" that we ourselves cannot reproduce.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

11 minutes ago, Jody Thornton said:

You're still on that "favourite" business?  Wow, I've never seen the Queen's English requirement be such a big deal for anybody.

Agreed!  I've started to view that and similar as "naysaying".  Oh well.  I have a need for 360Chrome, it continues to work for me.  Onward and upward.

[Skorpios]

Ver 2044 working quite OK on my cr@ppy Thinkpad T43 with XP Pro SP3 and 2 GB RAM.

Added to 360loader.ini:

--ssl-version-min=tls1.2
--process-per-site
--renderer-process-limit=2
--disable-infobars

=====

Flags enabled via GUI: (maybe a security risk, I don't know, I don't care...)

Experimental Extension APIs
Experimental JavaScript
Experimental WebAssembly
Future V8 VM features
Experimental Web Platform features

=====

Plugins disabled:

Chromium PDF Viewer
Chromium PDF Plugin
Native Client
Shockwave Flash

=====

Rebased with an error but have been browsing around for hours without chrashing or any error message.

"C:\unpack>delcert chrome.dll

Target file(s): chrome.dll

Stripping file: C:\unpack\chrome.dll.
Succeeded.

C:\unpack>libase chrome.dll
LIBASE: module "CHROME.DLL" rebased from 0x10000000 to 0x62a00000
NOTE: size (0x07560000) exceeds base separation (0x00100000)"

=====

Gmail OK
Protonmal quick login but extremely sloooooow opening of the Inbox and no error messages (only 2 mails sitting there)

Scanned with Kasperskys Tool, found processhacker...
McAfee Enterprise running most of the time.

Thank you NHTPG!

[D.Draker]

10 hours ago, Cocodile said:

I think he wrote he doesn't use this browser anymore, if by the 3rd member of Vista x64 you meant your (and our) favourite member @D.Draker.

Yes, right! Folks, thanks for the attention! Sorry, I'm not interested. From what I know, it's the remnants of CRC checks that produce this error.

I don't know how and when I'll be able to help, I'm in the process of making some money for my military skills. 

As you all may have noticed my absence for some time.

Hope you're all well. 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

6 hours ago, Skorpios said:

found processhacker...

This is a legit concern, to be perfectly honest.

It is also a very highly discussed false positive on several real-time protection forums (I found it on Kaspersky, Symantec, TrendMicro, and BitDefender discussion boards).

Apparently, even Windows' own Task Manager is also one of these false positives.

That said, being false positive or not, this would prevent me from running build 2044 at work.

I have been running build 2036 at work for quite some time, so I have to assume it does not have this false positive or Global IT would have sent me a "nastygram" asking if this program is "work-related".

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, D.Draker said:

for my military skills

A non-political be safe, fellow MSFNer.

[seven4ever]

I've tested the browsers under XP 64, win7 64 and win 10 64 , still 476 score with http://html5test.com/

Some have 528, so I thing it's perhaps a setting, if someone have time to compare with my results in link below, it would help me.

Post 2 page 9, or my result : 

http://html5test.com/s/dff722654b9686a6.html

Edited October 15, 2023 by seven4ever

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I have scanned both 2036 and 2044 using Malwarebytes Premium Trial and found no threats.  67 files in 2036 plus 70 files in 2044 = 137 scanned items.  Zero threats detected, zero detections ignored.