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, 20242 yr by VistaLover

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, 20242 yr by dmiranda

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

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.

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.

Doesn't detect serial ports on XP.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

19 minutes ago, Saxon said:

but won't eliminate them all, due to the public requests.

That's what I was afraid of.