Tripredacus

False Google search is better than IPS, especially due to dorks.

I read that Germany uses DNS level blocking for domains. For Viz, I'm not sure which property they were trying to block but possibly Dragon Ball. Even an ISP I used to use would use first-line DNS to redirect some sites to the ISP's homepage, primarily file-sharing sites IIRC.

If you had any experience with enterprise level infosec, my statement would make perfect sense. To note that I (personally) have an understanding of the execution chain in theory but this is not confirmed. It would be foolish for me to provide that information as if it were valid, and an exploit exists, it could allow malign actors to take action against the site. If you had any experience in running a website, you would know that you never make public anything that could potentially allow someone to exploit the site. The site is sometimes redirecting to a new url now, a 98m4. User Agent may play a role, but changing the user agent in Palemoon (where I am typing from) to the one that Iron uses (where the redirect happens) doesn't cause the redirect to occur in Palemoon. I suspect that I know the reason for that, however since that information could be linked to an exploit, that won't be shared.

First find whether or not the errors being reported are actually the correct errors. A lot of times, Windows will show an error when a condition is blocked, but that doesn't necessarily mean the error text shown is accurate. For example, you can get a disk space error if a process that is attempting to write to disk gets interrupted or blocked because Windows doesn't actually run a secondary check on whether or not there is free space. All it knows is that it tried to write and could not, so it presumes there is no space. You could run into the same issue here. But since you are looking at Paged Pool Memory, you do have the ability to check to see whether or not this is actually exhausted and if so, what is using it. BUT for this you need to use Kernel Debugging with WinDbg. I can't find a download for the version that would work on XP using google! but the Windows Software Development Kit for Windows 7 would at least work. Then this would be a start: https://gemini.google.com/share/adaf5e6e2c36 But windbg is not an easy program to use, you'll end up having to do a lot of research before you can actually know what you are looking at. An LLM would be able to help, but of course they make mistakes in interpretation just like people do. yes/no. Some parts of the registry are compressed on disk, and on OS load, they are expanded into RAM. Then they only exist in RAM at that point. You can probably research which portions are like this, but you can get some hints when using regedit when you run across either parts that are read-only or parts that if you change them, do not survive a reboot.

There is more information about this issue that is not being shared for confidentiality reasons. There's no shade being directed with a statement like that. This isn't a client issue but if people do happen to find ways (like @NojusK did) or other specific software + versions, it is good to post that here. According to Xper, the issue doesn't seem to be with the server itself, rather likely with some other piece of infrastructure somewhere between the client and server. The issue remains, I've had to change browsers to visit the site.

Bold = loud Italics = emphasis

Stop fighting against people who are trying to provide information! The issue has been seen in Discord Preview, some search engine results, Some versions of Supremium and one version of Iron so far. Posting user agents that are affected are OK but I have a thought that it isn't user agent based. On my Iron install where the redirect happens, I have this user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Iron Safari/537.36 If I change my user agent in Chrome to that using the Network Conditions option in DevTools, the redirect doesn't occur. I verify that Chrome is using the Iron UA via whatsmyuseragent.com The thing in common is that all browsers are using an older Chromium engine. I do not think that it is a client issue per se.

Happens with Iron 109 on Win7, not Chrome 109 on Win7. Doesn't happen with Iron 135 on Win 10.

At least 3 people have the issue, including myself. It only happens on Iron (on win 7 but not Win 10), not Firefox or Chrome for me. I don't know what triggers it, I don't know how to intercept that.

Confirmed and reported

My primary system for general browsing is still on Windows 7, so that may not be correct. The three browsers I am running surely cannot be anywhere close to being modern by this point: Iron 109.0.5550.0 Chrome 109.0.5414.120 Firefox 115.32.0esr (this one actually does still update actually)

No, this makes things difficult for a server admin. Another site I admin on can often see bot swarms at levels that exhaust server resources (database specifically) and will make the site slow. So I've had to pull the access.log a couple of times and run it through an analyzer tool to find out just how these bots appear. The "good" ones, bots operated by legitimate (although some people may disagree) corporations, have user agents or other identifying information that they send along with their HTTP GET requests. These are bots like search engine spiders and AIs. The Western world bots from Microsoft, Amazon, XAI, etc are all identifyable and more importantly do not tend to bombard sites likely because a lot of information is already cached in datacenters. The corporate bots from SEA have user agents but tend to send way too many requests. The issue is tied between the SEA AI bots and the "unknown" variety that can be determined to be from an AI or LLM setup *somewhere* but they send no information along to the web server. So when 6,000 bots decide to hit the server at some point, 5% are legit western origin, 45% are legit eastern origin and the rest are the unidentified. Of course, many of the unidentified are not actual mysteries, but you can't determine that just from the logs. You'd have to research IP addresses, ports, GET strings, etc and it can be figured out. But this takes an incredible amount of time to not only research, keep up to date and set block/control lists on the server that using a go-between that already has most of this information tracked is very compelling. Especially since Cloudflare has a free option that many sites can use, this is likely why you end up seeing it used so much. All Cloudflare is, basically a software firewall that sits between a website and the user. Cloudflare shows different things to different browsers, browser settings (js enabled or not, etc) and based on perceived country or region of origin. There is also likely a difference between their free and paid version. I personally have not see any sort of captcha from Cloudflare in a long time, I only get a checkbox to prove I'm human.

I don't understand gambling much either. Just for fun I put your question into Gemini and this is an excerpt of what it responded.

Cloudflare is legit and MANY websites are forced to use it to deal with the huge issue of bots these days. The alternative is to dig through access logs and maintain a block list manually.

Process Explorer https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-explorer It is portable also. Manually using taskkill https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/taskkill