Thorium

[AstroSkipper]

58 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

My Windows 10 Firewall Control is blocking and logging this connection, fortunately.  I performed a WHOIS check ...

As I already mentioned in my Antimalware thread, Windows 10 Firewall Control is great and is doing a perfect job in controlling all system and application connections like, for example, Thorium. 

[Dave-H]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

As a technically interested person and die-hard Windows XP Professional 32-bit enthusiast , I installed Thorium on my very old and very weak computer for testing purposes only. 

My hardware and OS specs are: Windows XP Professional SP3 with  all updates after SP3 and additionally all POSReady updates, an Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.80 GHz CPU (single core, 32 Bit), 1.5 GB SD-RAM and a NVIDIA GeForce 6200 graphic card.

I am using the version Thorium_SSE2_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x32 in portable mode. Nothing has been installed to avoid any compromising of my system.  It was hard to adjust the browser settings and flags to load pages as it actually should be. I am using the extension uBlock Origin as I do in all my browsers to filter and block all crap. However, uBlock Origin had to be exactly adjusted to not interfere negatively the loading of websites. I will test Thorium for a while to see how it behaves on my very weak Windows XP computer. But in any case, I am also interested in experiences from other users with Thorium on old 32-bit computers. 

FWIW Alex tells me that uBlock Origin is bundled with Thorium. 🙂

[66cats]

14 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

made me prick up my ears

Literally how device discovery (SSDP) works -- on Windows, on Linux, on Android; On Chrome, on Chromium, on Firefox.  What's in any way noteworthy about Thorium behaving exactly like Chromium?

Edited May 1, 2024 by 66cats

[AstroSkipper]

12 minutes ago, 66cats said:

Literally how device discovery (SSDP) works -- on Windows, on Linux, on Android; On Chrome, on Chromium, on Firefox.  What's suspicious about Thorium behaving exactly like Chromium?

Usually, I do not use any Chrome or Chromium browsers under Windows XP. My daily drivers under Windows XP are New Moon 28, Mypal 68 and Serpent 52. And there is no such behaviour. 

[66cats]

1 minute ago, AstroSkipper said:

there is no such behaviour.

There's nothing remotely malicious/harmful about those packets, simply normal Chrome behavior. For Chromecast, i guess, maybe other stuff.

 

26 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

As I already mentioned in my Antimalware thread, Windows 10 Firewall Control is great and is doing a perfect job in controlling all system and application connections like, for example, Thorium. 

No need to add any firewall rules, it's not a routable address.

[Dixel]

Disallow UDP connections. It doesn't need them. Lookups can be done via https. Precise explanations.

https://www.digitalcitizen.life/dns-over-https-secure-dns-lookups/

[66cats]

Thorium on 32-bit mobile single core. A bit misleading, feels slower. 

Kafan Minibrowser, same HW. Much faster IRL; faith in benchmarks & numbers in general lost.

Edited May 1, 2024 by 66cats

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

 I just found this by accident, and its description made me prick up my ears:

It's one of the reasons I only run UNGOOGLED variations of Chrome-based browsers.

[Dixel]

5 hours ago, nicolaasjan said:

Thorium doesn't do it here, because I have UPnP service disabled.

Why Thorium needs it, I don't know.

(Google search)

https://www.google.com/search?q="239.255.255.250"+upnp&newwindow=1&sca_upv=1&hl=en#ip=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol

https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/43299/why-is-vivaldi-connecting-to-239-255-255-250-port-1900-udp-ssdp-and-requires-it/3

Thorium surely does add tracking parameters to your search. &newwindow=1&sca_upv=1&hl=en#ip=1

What's this "ip=1", especially interesting. Looks very much like a command to record/collect your IP adddress.

 

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

It's one of the reasons I only run UNGOOGLED variations of Chrome-based browsers.

If I'm not mistaken, someone here still tries to tell it's all open source, so no problem to apply the ungoogled patches yourself, what stops you?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I already have!  Most of the methods used in 360Chrome carry over.

I am not the end-user and I do not have GitHub account for discussing on GitHub.

The Official UNGOOGLED patches can be found here - https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/patches/series

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, 66cats said:

3 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

As I already mentioned in my Antimalware thread, Windows 10 Firewall Control is great and is doing a perfect job in controlling all system and application connections like, for example, Thorium. 

No need to add any firewall rules, it's not a routable address.

I did not add any specific rules. In Windows 10 Firewall Control, Thorium is restricted to the standard web browser zone as all other browsers, too. The connection to the posted address was not allowed in this zone. Therefore, it was blocked automatically. No more, no less.

[Dixel]

Knocking on UDP, trying to make connections via QUIC, broadcasting to literally everything and everyone is the default chrome behaviour. 

The question is, why (if both @win32 and Alexi are trying to implement at least something similar to Ungoogled) didn't cut  it out first.

Seems like a very logical (and rather simple) first step.

[AstroSkipper]

39 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Knocking on UDP, trying to make connections via QUIC, broadcasting to literally everything and everyone is the default chrome behaviour. 

The question is, why (if both @win32 and Alexi are trying to implement at least something similar to Ungoogled) didn't cut  it out first.

Seems like a very logical (and rather simple) first step.

On my weak machine, these unnecessary connections do have an impact to my CPU and are counterproductive for smoother browsing. So, I am glad to have got rid of them. 

Edited May 1, 2024 by AstroSkipper
correction

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Agreed.  A CPU can only do so much per clock cycle.