I'm not intending to rub salt into the wound, but this illustrates the ever-present dangers of relying on Sync as a substitute for genuine backups. There simply are too many accidental ways for messing up or deleting sync data, not to mention the possibility of the sync server losing the data in some server/portal crash or 'incident'. The safest backup approach has always been, and remains, to make occasional genuine data backups of critical personal-data browser files (like preferences, bookmarks, sessions, etc) - preferably onto external media. While such backups may at times not be exactly current, with a little effort they can be maintained reasonably close to a current state... and having them available, even if a bit out-of-date, can be a literal life saver when (not if) an "oops" or hardware crash occurs.

@thephototoday said in Can Opera be fully Trusted:>

...
Call it paranoia, conspiracy, an influence of Hollywood or whatever you want, but if even Opera itself is funny to present them on their website, it makes me less thankful to use a program paid for by the Chinese.

Nothing is free if Google traffics with my data thanks to Chrome at least I know. Opera does not know where the Chinese have told him he should generate profits.

If you're not actually living in China, then Chinese control/censorship/tracking of their own citizenry is not a technically-relevant issue for your use of a web-browser even if the browser were somehow covertly altered to support such native control schemes (and of which, there is absolutely no evidence yet in Opera). The only remaining risk of something dangerous covertly coded into a browser would be some form of spyware/malware designed to steal your personal data or to spread itself along and into the local network for malicious/covert purposes... and that would have relevance to China only if you were involved in critical/defense-related infrastructure professions. Again, there's absolutely no evidence yet that anything like that exists in Opera.

Certainly, in one's imagination, anything might be possible for a Chinese owner of Opera. But 'possible' by no means is the same as 'likely' or 'reasonable'. One's rationality must always outweigh their paranoia. Embedding malware/spyware into a browser like Opera would seriously risk being discovered by the numerous far-flung Opera developers in multiple lands, having access to its code; it would risk discovery by countless 3rd-party monitors of software products and malware/spyware exploits throughout the world. Once discovered, it would be in clear violation of governing Norwegian laws, and it would be a truly product-killing event that would utterly destroy Opera's reputation thereafter and damage the reputation of any Chinese enterprise exporting any software/firmware product. To most nation-state 3-letter actors (NSA, FSB, etc), such risks would far outweigh any likely reward.

There's clearly a communications problem going on here.

The first post made by @livingpharaoh was actually in a different Opera sub-forum (Opera for Computers): https://forums.opera.com/post/164596 . In that post, he specifically stated he'd just installed Opera 58, was looking for "Themes" options, and got entangled while searching in Opera's website by a referral to "Tools" for the Themes option. He then asked if that website description was out of date. @Leo responded "yes, it is". Unfortunately, that accurate moderator reply didn't address the OPs' underlying concern of where might Themes be found in Opera 58 (actually, such as it exists, under Settings > Wallpapers and/or Appearance). However, the reply did answer the OP's specific question.

The OP then posted here in the "Forums" sub-forum with a sarcastic-toned complaint towards Opera's support, regarding what he deemed the insufficiency of the reply to his original post in the Opera-for-computers forum. Subsequently (and unfortunately), it seems everyone thereafter has been essentially talking past each other here.

Several observations occur to me:

1. The Opera websites indeed can too easily lead a user (especially one new to chromium-based Opera) down some confusing rabbit holes related to Olde Opera terminology and documentation which don't apply to New Opera. This is not the first instance of this in user posts I've seen.
2. Sometimes the most relevant, underlying nature of a problem post gets missed by a reply. I too am guilty of this at times, occasionally because of misleading language/wording/interpretation and other times by a particular mindset I may bring to my first reading of the problem post.
3. Sometimes, after a single problem post that doesn't get a (to them) 'suitable' reply, posters lose patience (and their tempers) and generate a 'snarky' post. What results thereafter is often a flame war that pulls in other attackers/defenders and alienates all involved.

I believe what's needed is patience on the part of each of us, original posters and responders alike, along with a willingness to calmly ask for and respond with more information and/or clarity when requested.

To some users, any record of the names or content of visited sites left in the browser may prove an "embarassment" when/if other users share the system. In a few locales, certain leftover names or content records in a browser may have fatal potential. Not knowing the poster's reasons for wanting the browser records completely cleaned upon demand, it's hard to be critical. I do share the opinion that a browser function or settings label should accurately reflect reality, and an option to 'clean browser history' should indeed clear all the forms of browing records since each of them constitutes part of its true browsing history. Only clearing some of the data under such a label forms a misleading impression of security; this is even more true if there are not co-located alternate controls for records-removal that might act to reinforce a user understanding of the incompleteness of the original function.

@coffeelover said in Can Opera be fully Trusted:

... I "think" (not sure so it's a total guess on my part) that most people believe coding can be more easily hidden in software than hardware so they're more willing to trust their devices than the programs they load onto them. Does it make sense? Probably not but my gut feeling is that this is how most people think.

You're right that it's how most people think (at least most people who even think about security - the vast bulk of users rarely even consider it in any depth). But since most "hardware" contains "firmware" (which is code embedded into PROMS or flash memory), there is far less difference than many folks might imagine. Discovery of backdoor code (intentionally malicious or simply heedlessly left over from factory testing access) has popped up in the news continually in everything from chips to full-blown PC boards for years.

Having worked in the digital and national security realms for 40+ years, I find no more security against spyware/malware in general code-capable parts/devices than I do in downloadable software programs, unless those parts/devices have been procured and tested against a published DoD/military QPL (qualified parts list). In reality, assuming one practices "safe hex", the key issues have more to do with who you are (your profession) and what you have to lose (in terms of secrets) than what an adversary may or may not do. In other words, if you have secrets that make you a worthwhile target or link you to a prime critical/infrastructure target, then you have reason to be super-cautious about national-origin of equipment or software. Otherwise, not nearly so much...

@browzer1 said in How to change your browser ID within Opera:

@rif ... Does this not change the Opera "statistics" on web browsing? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Yes, it does affect the usage stats. If a user can access a site by changing the browser ID, it's a good thing for him in gaining access to the site... but it's not a good thing for Opera's market share stats. The ideal would be for websites to respect and operate properly with Opera's genuine user-agent string or respond to user complaints if they don't. But all too often, that's not how the online world seems to operate...

@leocg said in Why Use Opera?:

... So different situations, different needs.

This!!!

For many years I used Olde Opera precisely because it fit nearly all my browsing needs, just as my needs had evolved around the many features of that browser. When Opera elected to follow the Blink pathway, I was a rather ardent Opera defender for a time in Opera's old forums amidst the truly massive outcry against that change. My key point then was for users to be patient and give Opera's developers time to integrate various key features (whose losses were being loudly decried) into the new browser. As time went by, some of the key 'dropped' features needed for my work flow were indeed restored to the evolving design (bookmarking, in particular). But others were not, and even the bookmarks feature itself lacked certain sub-features that were very significant to me (eg: the ability to set bookmarks bar titles to text only, since I need 50-70 bookmarks on a given single-line toolbar and abbreviate their titles severely). During that time, I often found myself increasingly agreeing with @ayespy's postings in the old Opera forums trying to persuade the developers and posters of the need for what we viewed as better control, features, and customization capability in New Opera, but to diminishing avail. Opera's focus had shifted.

What was actually occurring was both a change in the way the Opera browser was targeted and a change in (or more accurately, my recognition of) the importance of various detail requirements of my work flow using browsers. Opera was now developing a browser for 'the marketplace', whereas I had evolved solid work patterns dependent on my having detailed control/customization of browser settings, functions, and features. Thus, for a long time, I persisted in using Olde Opera (12.18) for much of my work-related browsing and both New Opera and Firefox for my casual browsing. Fortunately, as Olde Opera became unacceptably obsolete in terms of website compatibility, Vivaldi came upon the scene. It allowed me the detailed customization and features in areas that my work flow had come to demand. It's design mantra was that it was "a browser for our friends", meaning those users who require detail browser functionality and control. Hence, it's a browser that is actually a configurable tool.

Today, I have different needs than most of the users now targeted by Opera. So I use Vivaldi for my primary browsing and New Opera for some casual browsing. And I experiment a bit with Otter. They're all good browsers given the roles they're intended to play... but they're each aimed at different user needs and priorities. Frankly, I'm glad they all exist. And they're free...

@leocg said in Opera-Werbeblocker:

@archimede What would be that?

Opera-Werbeblocker is Opera's adblocker.

@jeremycards In a typical Win 10 system, you can find it at folder: C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc. Note that the file has no extension term, but is simply "hosts". You can open it and edit it in Notepad... just make sure to again save it without a file extension. Suggestion: before you edit it, save a copy of the original as hosts.bak, just in case something gets messed up... if it does get messed up, you can then always get back to the original.

@nephtys59 Log4j2 is a logging package for Java that responds to "calls" made to its library (but which, in the case of the vulnerability, can be made to introduce all manner of unauthorized commands into the host system). Hence, the primary log4j2 vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228, CVE-2021-45046) rests with systems running Java applications or that interface in certain ways with systems running such Java applications. As a result, the ultimate solution to this primarily rests with operators of such systems updating their log4j2 libraries to log4j2.16 or later (an initial log4j2.15 "fix" was found to still have some weaknesses). Given that in the real world, Java applications can exist in myriad places and be deeply embedded into all manner of systems and servers, it's likely that the vulnerability may unfortunately remain with us for a long time to come.

The question you raised is to what extent a web browser can be impacted by the log4j2 issue. If the browser itself doesn't contain Java calls (not to be confused with the unrelated JavaScript language) or coding modules, then the browser isn't directly affected by the vulnerability. If the browser does contain Java linkages, then it can in theory be affected by the vulnerability even if a vulnerable log4j2 package resides on a server with which the browser is communicating. Whether Opera (or any other browser) contains any Java linkages is for its developers to state.

That said, even without Java linkages existing in a browser, any server (including web site servers or whatever they themselves may link to) that contains a vulnerable log4j2 package version is susceptible to being hacked in almost any conceivable manner. That, in turn, means the potential for website hacking (even for otherwise "safe" or reputable sites) goes up greatly in the Internet world... and that presents increased risks for all web browsing regardless of the browser. Keeping a browser up to its latest version is a primary defense against a hacked website causing grief to the user's system by exploitation of a browser flaw. But there is little defense against a hacked website itself abusing a user's data if it involves the user logging in and/or supplying personal/financial information to the 'trusted' site. That's where a lot of the current concern about this issue really rests.

@neoprana "Continue" in what way? That error message can occur for multiple reasons, all having to do with the security certificate associated with the website using https protocols. The "best" path forward depends on what is the actual reason behind the error, and those reasons can include anything from an improperly-constructed (or forged) cert, a bad browser extension, a problematic antivirus, a corrupted OS cert store, all the way to a genuine browser hiccup.

Since the stored certificate specifies the encryption mechanisms/keys needed to establish secure https communications with a given site, a valid and functioning cert will be needed by the system to visit the website in https - and the error message indicates there's a major problem with that cert. Otherwise, you need to use the unsecured http protocol to visit the site, assuming that connection exists.

@OperaUser42 said in My Opera VPN pro is not working:

@blackbird71 Another good reason why I won't use Win10/11 I don't want Microsoft involved in apps and extensions.

??? My comment (made several YEARS ago) and this entire thread have nothing to do with Windows10/11 per se... they involve Opera VPN Pro.

@toohoo It hasn't had development work or updates done on it for years. However, it can still be downloaded from here: https://get.opera.com/ftp/pub/opera/mail/1.0/ , depending on your OS.

@rmarinrojas If Opera is not set to autostart on your system whenever you power the system up, and if you've set the default browser to another non-Opera browser, and if a system restart immediately brings up Opera at the gambling website, you probably have adware present on the system which is triggering from one of the Windows startup folders - either at the system level or at the user account level.

As a simple first try at a fix, after restarting your computer, press Windows' Start button, and go to Settings. Then in the "Find a setting" box in the middle of the page that appears,, type: Startup. From the popup menu that then appears, click on Startup Apps. You should see a listing of apps or programs that the system and the user account activate at system startup. Scan the list for anything that you don't recognize as belonging there - especially something that may refer to Opera or the gambling website. If there is something alien there, use Windows' "Add or Remove Programs" function, locate the alien name again on that list, and uninstall it.

Then use Explorer to go to the folder at C:\users\<your username>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\StartMenu\Programs\Startup and look at the filenames listed there... again, look for something that you don't recognize as belonging there. If there's something alien there, delete it.

Otherwise, you may want to want to download and try some reputable adware removal tools like AdwCleaner. For persistent adware problems, you may need to download and employ multiple cleanup programs as discussed at the Bleeping Computer website: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/how-to-remove-adware-on-a-pc

@rmarinrojas To be crystal clear, when you say you "changed" the browser to Chrome and Edge, do you mean you changed the system's default browser setting to each of those, not merely opened each after a restart? If so, do you also mean that after changing the default browser setting to one of those two and restarting the system, it nevertheless still auto-opened Opera to the gambling site?

Finally, do you have Opera intentionally installed or set to turn on and appear automatically when your system is powered up, regardless of the system's default browser setting?

@rmarinrojas It sounds as if you've got something that has inserted itself to activate when you start your system, but that needs verification. As @leiocg suggests, try temporarily setting another browser as default and restart the system. If the gambling site still pops up right away in that browser, it verifies that you've got malware/adware that's installed itself at a system level so that it activates upon startup. If the problem disappears with an alternative default browser, then it implies something has gotten into just your Opera installation. The solution path forward depends on which situation has been verified to occur.

@jack4568 Have you looked at your hosts file (in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc ) in the problem system(s) to see if there are rerouting/blocking entries there that involve Opera?

@emilyywemily Is it a bluetooth-connected keyboard? If so, try disconnecting it and then reconnecting it.

@pkpetr said in Can't use Opera on Windows 7?:

How long ago? But obviously when Opera could still be used in Windows7.

Two different kinds of Opera were used with Windows7: the original Opera based on the old Presto engine (up through version 12.18) and the later Opera which succeeded it, based on the chromium engine. However, due to Windows7 becoming obsolete some years ago, the last chromium Opera version that can still be used with Windows7 was frozen at version 95... any later versions will refuse to install on Windows7 due to incompatibilities.

The reason this matters is that where various types of data is stored depends on the kind of Opera engine being used by the Opera versions. Hence, where one needs to look for saved information requires them to know which Opera style/version is involved. Because two types of Opera could be installed in Windows 7, it's necessary to know which one was involved in your original saving of the document or the website URL linked to the document in order to know where to look for it now.

@pkpetr There seems to be some language confusion occurring. When you earlier said "Chrome Opera", what exactly did you mean? Is that an Opera version installed on a Chromebook device? Or is it some chromium-based version of Opera you installed on the Windows 7 device? Several years ago, Opera switched over to a chromium-based design. Before that (during the main Windows 7 era), Opera was a Presto-based design. The design differences are important regarding where different things are saved in each version.

Also, when you said you want to get a "document from my previous Opera in Windows" and later said "it is a web site", do you mean a website that hosts the document or are you talking about a document you earlier downloaded in Opera from a website? Approximately how long ago did you last successfully access the 'document' you mention?