SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites?

General discussion about Slimjet, or other issues related to web browser in general.
Locked
danielson
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:27 pm
Location: AR

SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites?

Post by danielson »

Notice something new every time i look at SJ settings.
Just wondering what kind of extra protection SJ is giving against dangerous sites when compared to Chrome or other Chrome based?

User avatar
beast-usa
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:31 pm
Contact:

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by beast-usa »

Hmmm :)

I would say that depends on how it's set up and what extensions you're using.
Slimjet has lots of settings that you can disable for privacy and better privacy is always better security.
You can also get the pure version of Chromium very fast like Slimjet. But you can't disable the same things :( you can download versions that they are already disabled in that version.

Your most important settings are under Security & Privacy. (also towards the bottom turn off continue running apps in the background)
And if you're not sure what they do look them up or ask. :) DON'T SEARCH THEM ON GOOGLE! LOL duckduckgo, baidu, bing, yahoo, anyone but google.

A really good extension that will protect you & your privacy. :)
PRIVACY BADGER do not disable it for ANY SITE. Good sites don't data-mine or track you. (You can add this to any Chromium based browser)
NEVER sign into google unless you read the WHOLE EULA and if you have read the whole EULA you would never use them. :)
What do the pure Chromium guys call Google Chrome LOL "The base browser that googles TROJAN browser is built on"

I love Slimjet for the settings, the turbo download, the SPEED.
But using it on Netflix is a pain playing TV shows after 2 or 3 episodes it will have an error and you need to restart.
Certain animated graphic's just don't play like on a twitter feed they start do one frame and stop or just never start.
ThermalTake GT10, Asus Rampage V Exteme, i7-6950X (Raystorm water block), 32gigs DDR4-3000 Crucial Ballistix Tactical, EVGA GTX 1080 SC, OS HD's - 2 X 128gig Crucial M550's SSD's in Raid 0, Corsair SINGLE RAIL 1050 watt

cwm4bama
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:16 pm

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by cwm4bama »

A reliable extension to install in SJ is the "Web-of-Trust" (WOT) add-on...it will warn you of risky sites and give you the option to go there anyway or abort going to that site.

Just go to the Chrome add-on site and look for WOT and let it install in SJ..

danielson
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:27 pm
Location: AR

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by danielson »

Thanks for the reminder about Privacy Badger extension!
WOT can be a plus, but i find it often annoying since it gets its lines crossed between info (views) that is questionable and a site that may infect your computer (which i think should be its main and only concern).

Actually, was wondering how to interpret the option under settings/privacy:
"Protect you and your device from dangerous sites".
Is this a kind of "Malwarebytes" protection?
An extra antivirus or stealth mode that stops malware on track?

User avatar
oftentired
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 3:14 am

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by oftentired »

danielson wrote:Actually, was wondering how to interpret the option under settings/privacy:
"Protect you and your device from dangerous sites".
It has probably been enhanced or updated since this article was written, but essentially as described at the link below. And, it is a feature that comes with Chromium, it is not added to Chromium as part of the Slimjet modifications.

Chrome Dangerous Sites Protection
For those of you who wear aluminum foil hats, the voices lie, don't believe them!

32 Bit SJ on Win 11

danielson
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:27 pm
Location: AR

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by danielson »

I understand now.
Thanks boss! :)


Btw, recent news has it that WOT was pulled out by Mozilla and Google on account of it user leaking information.

cwm4bama
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:16 pm

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by cwm4bama »

WOT is still available for most all browsers here, including SJ and Chrome:

https://www.mywot.com/

Warning screen.
Safe web browsing with safety alerts.
If you land on a site that has poor reputation based on user ratings, WOT shows you a warning. WOT guides you, but the final decision is yours: you can skip the warning and enter the site, or return to the previous page.

danielson
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:27 pm
Location: AR

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by danielson »

I could be blind, but i just don't see a link to any Firefox or Chromium based browser extension on that WOT webpage.

dev
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:30 pm

Re: SJ better than Chrome at protection from dangerous sites

Post by dev »

told people before not to use wot .....was found to be harvesting users' browsing histories and selling them to third parties has had its availability pulled from a number of web browsers' add-on repositories. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/07 ... histories/

Locked