August 26, 20242 yr Interesting reading,but with many inaccurate points, brought to attention in Wilders Security Forum: https://borncity.com/win/2024/07/13/user-identification-via-chromium-browser-chrome-edge-brave/ In my chromium-based browser I do not detect this hidden extension. I also did a full search of all json files and it is not present. I also never use any Google.* websites. But a check with your chromium-based browsers is always advisable.
August 26, 20242 yr @ED_Sln use --disable-component-update https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/829
August 26, 20242 yr On 8/25/2024 at 11:04 PM, Sampei.Nihira said: Interesting reading,but with many inaccurate points, brought to attention in Wilders Security Forum: https://borncity.com/win/2024/07/13/user-identification-via-chromium-browser-chrome-edge-brave/ In my chromium-based browser I do not detect this hidden extension. I also did a full search of all json files and it is not present. I also never use any Google.* websites. But a check with your chromium-based browsers is always advisable. It's there at least from 2013, I knew about it all along, wrote about it on the forum (along with @Dixel), and I always deleted it from resources.pak, all of those "methods" to use "policies" are crap. chrome will revert all those. The only way is to cut it out physically. Screen from the latest CentBrowser, as an example.
August 26, 20242 yr On 8/25/2024 at 11:04 PM, Sampei.Nihira said: In my chromium-based browser I do not detect this hidden extension. It is because Chrome won't let you. But then again, it's there - regardless. And the "method" to detect it, whaht they suggest, of course does't work.
August 27, 20242 yr 18 hours ago, D.Draker said: It is because Chrome won't let you. But then again, it's there - regardless. And the "method" to detect it, whaht they suggest, of course does't work. I used 4 other methods to verify and in my Edge it is not present. One of them I wrote about in the browser Policies thread. So I certainly do not have this extension hidden. P.S. It says in the article that it has been there since 2013. And the method described in the article (which I have used now,so we are up to 5 methods) works. The specific policy certainly works because it is specific to the hidden extension ID. If this extension is installed without the user's knowledge (and hidden) it will deactivate it. Edited August 27, 20242 yr by Sampei.Nihira
August 27, 20242 yr 22 hours ago, Sampei.Nihira said: And the method described in the article (which I have used now,so we are up to 5 methods) works. The specific policy certainly works because it is specific to the hidden extension ID. If this extension is installed without the user's knowledge (and hidden) it will deactivate it. Proof please, Videos, screenshots.
August 27, 20242 yr Ask the wrong person for info. If you have the problem I brought to your attention,ask for teachings from Dixel/D.Draker (always you of course) who solved the problem back in 2013. To you 4 (I will not name the other one) who are 1 I will not show anything. Period. Edited August 27, 20242 yr by Sampei.Nihira
August 27, 20242 yr 11 hours ago, Sampei.Nihira said: Period. Don't you dare to "period" members, especially women. Evidently, you didn't read the article you yourself linked to. "This has been around since at least 2016." My solution from 2013 is different, and I explained it in details (with the screenshot). People just don't trust you word anymore, you've been caught too many times posting disinfo, misleading articles and so on. I posted the screenshot, what stops you to do the same? The author of the article wrote "should", it's all in theory. "The question has arisen that in this case, the extension should be blocked – but I have not tested this." Of course, because the author suggested a very dubious way to block via GPO, which resets when one starts a new profile! Why didn't you mention that? Huh?
August 27, 20242 yr 22 hours ago, D.Draker said: --disable-component-update I know it's already been answered there. But I didn't have time today to check if this parameter helps.
August 27, 20242 yr 11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I'm lost! What the heck are we talking about? @Sampei.Nihira for the 13857163618319817th time gave an article, a very dubious one, even the author wrote he didn't check himself. When asked, @Sampei.Nihira didn't provide any proof of what he claims (as usual), instead he told Karla to trust his word (as usual, in a rude form) . At least today he didn't write to "shut up". As for the topic, there's a tracking app in Supermium/Thorium, it's an old Googel invention, we (You, Dixel and I) axed it off 360 and Chrome a long time ago.
August 29, 20242 yr On 8/27/2024 at 10:53 AM, Sampei.Nihira said: To you 4 (I will not name the other one) who are 1 I will not show anything. Instead of linking to something from 2016, why won't you tell us about the latest Google "achievement", another anti-feature to be included in the next Supermium release? https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-advertising/enrollment It has a mysterious name "Privacy Sandbox Attestations". Already there, in Chrome v.128, maybe even lower.
September 3, 20242 yr Supermium 126 release: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v126 It's a pre-release and the first to use ESR tag.
September 3, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, mina7601 said: It's a pre-release and the first to use ESR tag. This is AWESOME NEWS! Finally we have a path forward where we can REMAIN on v126 when "upstream" may be at v147 or v167 at their ridiculously insane pace! I am much more in favor of an ESR approach then the constant dog-chasing-tail new "major" release every 2 to 3 weeks.
September 5, 20241 yr There's a release version of Supermium 126 (r1, as indicated by the tag): https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v126-r1 On 9/3/2024 at 11:24 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said: I am much more in favor of an ESR approach then the constant dog-chasing-tail new "major" release every 2 to 3 weeks. Yeah, much faster releases.
Create an account or sign in to comment