8 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

you still don't know that?

For example DAVE, our respected moderator, uses XP on his daily basis, I use Vista.

So do i, daily, which says nothing about  "XP is insecure and not recommended." being factually incorrect. Apologies if feelings were hurt.

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by 66cats

6 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

For example DAVE, our respected moderator, uses XP on his daily basis, I use Vista.

And you want a medal for it? You think that makes you special?

Hi to all.

In my opinion guys,you are giving too much importance to flags.
Those who seek security should also look elsewhere.
For example, has anyone using XP enabled DEP (Data Execution Prevention) for Thorium?

 

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by Sampei.Nihira

17 hours ago, chermany4ever said:

To rebel against trends, against what seems to be imposed.

Maybe I'm the only one doing regular things (web, videos, music, occasional (re)programming, games).

Seeing IT from different perspectives has taught me worrying about software bells and whistles too much is unhealthy and in the end you die anyway.

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by UCyborg

8 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

For example, has anyone using XP enabled DEP (Data Execution Prevention) for Thorium?

Isn't this enabled by default unless you go out of the way to turn it off? Every program these days is compiled with NX Compat flag. This particular feature of the CPUs is ANCIENT at this point. The only people that turn it off have issues in their head (IMHO).

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by UCyborg

9 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Isn't this enabled by default unless you go out of the way to turn it off? Every program these days is compiled with NX Compat flag. This particular feature of the CPUs is ANCIENT at this point. The only people that turn it off have issues in their head (IMHO).

Certainly It can be.
Has anyone checked whether DEP is enabled -permanent with Process Explorer?

P.S.

Enabling DEP for all programs (EXE) and not just system processes if I remember correctly is an easy thing to do.

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by Sampei.Nihira

3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

And you want a medal for it? You think that makes you special?

Of course not! But the amount of times we read it, oh boy... Besides, telling it simply makes no sense since it's already publicly known we're on old "insecure" OS.

P.S. I want, and always preferred, strictly about the subject posts. 

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by D.Draker

@D.Draker
Sure, but it gets kinda old since MS in the forum name (Microsoft) is much larger term.

38 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

Certainly It can be.
Has anyone checked whether DEP is enabled -permanent with Process Explorer?

P.S.

Enabling DEP for all programs (EXE) and not just system processes if I remember correctly is an easy thing to do.

OK, this might actually be more important on XP x64, I bet Chromium calls infamous SetProcessDEPPolicy on XP x86, which doesn't exist on x64 XP (different branch). But if it does not call it appropriately on XP x86, does the OS get out of the way and enable it with the right flag in the .exe?

What you see below isn't the default state on XP x64:

I made a jump to the data section where I put a NOP instruction and tried to execute it. Prerequisite:

Otherwise, no access violation.

 

24 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

telling it simply makes no sense since it's already publicly known

Wasn't trying to inform, simply to put "--disable-encryption ... is unsecure" in due perspective.

24 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

@D.Draker
Sure, but it gets kinda old since MS in the forum name (Microsoft) is much larger term.

OK, this might actually be more important on XP x64, I bet Chromium calls infamous SetProcessDEPPolicy on XP x86, which doesn't exist on x64 XP (different branch). But if it does not call it appropriately on XP x86, does the OS get out of the way and enable it with the right flag in the .exe?

What you see below isn't the default state on XP x64:

I made a jump to the data section where I put a NOP instruction and tried to execute it. Prerequisite:

Otherwise, no access violation.

If you want to check whether DEP protection is up and running for browsers, you can also use the old HPA test tool:

http://dl.surfright.nl/hmpalert-test.exe

obviously only DEP would be (from my point of view) just enough for the security of browsers:

https://sendvid.com/wp52v128

in the video above my old anti-exploit protections in Windows XP applied to browsers.

But I am digressing,have a good evening.

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by Sampei.Nihira

10 minutes ago, 66cats said:

Wasn't trying to inform, simply to put "--disable-encryption ... is unsecure" in due perspective.

Yes, well, @AstroSkipper likes UXP browsers very much and they don't encrypt their databases.

18 hours ago, VistaLover said:

A more in-depth analysis of the term:

Thanks for the accuracy. Made me remember my first experience with a portable... was a game! Don't remember exactly which one but in those days they already came in 3 or more CDs and the process of installing could be tedious not to mention the thousands of files that were copied and other modifications to the system, you'll know better than me. So, the fact of downloading a single zip file with a folder that when unzipped you could just run the .exe and play... it was like magic! I think they were called "Direct Play". That's when it all started for me and from that moment on I always look for portables. Give me portables.

1 hour ago, 66cats said:

So do i, daily, which says nothing about  "XP is insecure and not recommended." being factually incorrect. Apologies if feelings were hurt.

No place here for feelings.  Everything is insecure. The whole world is insecure. 
  
And in these days, more recent Windows versions like Windows 10 are much more likely to be targeted by hackers than the small fraction of 1% who still use Windows XP. It's simply not worth it.  However, knowingly increasing general vulnerability and insecurity is something one can do, but one doesn't have to. 

48 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Yes, well, @AstroSkipper likes UXP browsers very much and they don't encrypt their databases.

Yep! I like UXP browsers. But if another browser offers such a security feature, why should I disable it?  That would make no sense.  I only disable features which have a noticeable, negative impact of the system or browser performance. And of course those which cause problems or are not supported by the system anyway. 

Edited June 7, 20242 yr by AstroSkipper
Update of content

4 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Yes, well, @AstroSkipper likes UXP browsers very much and they don't encrypt their databases.

What's UXP browsers? Something for Xeon Processors only?