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 and having them available, even if a bit out-of-date, can be a literal life saver when (not if) an "oops" or hardware crash occurs.

@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...

@rakejake said in OperaVPN is not working:

The whole dilemma can be resolved if Opera can confirm this.

If you are able to visit https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/internet-censorship-map/ , you can gain a view of the scope of censorship worldwide as of January 2020 (particularly if within that page, you set the "Show -- entries" to 100 in the nation-table part way down the site's page). Bangladesh ranks quite high for employing national censorship in that table (among the top 25 nations in the world), on a par with well-known censoring nations like Cuba, Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia but behind China, North Korea, Iran and a scattering of others.

Frankly, there is very little that Opera (or anyone else) can do about national censorship... nations are sovereign and do what they want. Why a nation blocks one site but not another has all to do with their interpretation of what they wish to block from their citizens, the technical mechanisms used in blocking, and the persistence of the personnel in the blocking agencies. If Opera's websites are reachable by ordinary browsing from most other nations in the world but not from within Bangladesh (which is the case), it stands as proof that the Opera sites are being blocked (intentionally or otherwise) within Bangladesh. There is nothing Opera can do about that. That some other VPN services might be able to penetrate the censorship speaks more to the lack of thoroughness of their blocking mechanism by Bangladesh and the ability of those VPNs to jump ahead of the censors by frequently changing their IPs or using other technical means. Bypassing national blocking is a continual (and expensive) electronic war between blockers and VPN providers, and probably goes well beyond the limited purposes Opera has in supplying a VPN option in their browser.

I don't work for Opera, but I don't see how (in practicality) Opera can conclusively determine on its own which nations are locally blocking its websites (including its VPN) since it doesn't reside physically in many of those nations and because the dynamics of who is blocking what change literally daily among nations. Moreover, nations that do block are usually very evasive about which specific sites they block for what reasons.

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.

@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...

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.

@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...

@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.

@leocg said in Opera-Werbeblocker:

@archimede What would be that?

Opera-Werbeblocker is Opera's adblocker.

@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.

@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?

@hdhondt It's possible that disabling the anti-keylogger in Zone Alarm may not completely reverse the hooks and interactions inserted into keyboard processing by Zone Alarm. It all depends on just how ZA implements their anti-keylogging feature in the operating system and how (or to what extent) "disabling" it reverts those implementations back to a pre-ZA, pristine, keystroking state... and, lacking any published insight into the details of Zone Alarm's actual anti-keylogging techniques, it's impossible to know whether disabling the anti-keylogging feature completely removes any perturbations to keystroking flow introduced by ZA's installed code (disabled or not).

If the problem keeps recurring for you, you may be faced with either restarting Opera periodically whenever it recurs or else consider removing Zone Alarm entirely. The problem you describe is not normally found with Opera (or other browsers), and the only times I've seen it arise with user systems is when an anti-keylogger is present on the system or when a keyboard is malfunctioning (in which case, the problem also recurs with other software on the system).

@hdhondt Zone Alarm's anti-keylogger has been known in the past to create typing issues with other browsers as well as Opera (eg: Firefox). While it's unclear just what techniques are involved with Zone Alarm's specific anti-keylogging approach (they haven't stated them), if these include industry-typical sandboxing and/or keystroke encryption or randomizing, then all kinds of potential problem areas for mis-timing and process interference can arise when keystroking into a browser.

Arguably, the best approach to avoid unwanted keylogging is to robustly prevent the malware installation in the first place, rather than attempting to combat keylogging after malware arrival.

@toreog said in ERR_QUIC_PROTOCOL_ERROR:

ERR_QUIC_PROTOCOL_ERROR

Are you using a VPN or a proxy? What website(s) were you trying to access? The error comes from your browser attempting to make use of of the Quick UDP Internet Connection protocol of certain web apps, mostly employed by Google and YouTube sites. Possible causes are typically the particular website and how it implements the protocol, Internet connection issues, or certain browser extensions.

@tivian You could have a rogue extension that either you or some software installed - if so, remove it. Also, you stated you "cleared your history and everything"... did that also include clearing your cache, tabs, and sessions? Finally, is this a browser or a Windows popup?

@sugreev2001 When exactly did this problem first occur? ("seems like forever" is rather inexact terminology). Also, what OS and Opera version are you running?

@burnied said in Just downloaded no install:

Windows versions tend to be more secure after years of use. ... Also if you steer away from dodgy sites and use a decent virus checker it is plenty secure enough.
Also MS do release emergency updates for serious problems. ...

Unless you received updates via a paid Extended Service agreement with Microsoft, your very last Win7 update (emergency or otherwise) would most likely have been around 31 Jan 2020, KB4539601. I find it difficult to believe that in the ensuing four and a third years, there have been no "serious" security flaws discovered that apply directly to Windows 7.

@sgunhouse Unfortunately, I'm not "Michael" nor am I conversant with functions to rewrite settings items. Sorry to say, I think you've mis-remembered the name.

@sfooter There are several ways websites can detect that a VPN is in use. When you visit any website, your computer sends header data with your IP address attached to each of multiple transmitted data packets so that the site can respond with its own data back to your correct address on the Internet. A VPN inserts itself into that data path so that a website is led to believe your data is coming from their IP address instead of yours; returning data packets from the website are routed by the VPN back to you at your IP address.

One common method a website can use for blocking VPNs is to simply identify the IP addresses employed by various commonly-used VPNs and block them. Other methods involve coding their websites in ways that the VPN can't directly (or correctly) respond to, and block them as a result.

While some VPNs may be better able to bypass a given website's "VPN sniffing" techniques, it's hard to predict specific results without knowing details of exactly how a particular VPN operates or a target website does its sniffing. The tendency seems to be that the simplest VPNs are more susceptible to being rejected by a website, but in any case, a website (or even a national censorship "firewall") that is sufficiently determined will always find ways to block a VPN. All you can really do is try some other VPNs and see what happens... or else find another website that offers similar content without blocking.