Leaderboard

Maybe it is useful to someone else, this thread dates back to 2006, and about XP and Outlook 2003. jaclaz

Can confirm too, no crashes here, taskview works as intended. Thanks @bigmuscle

Java has been updated today October 16, 2018 to Version 8 Update 191. First, download the last known working XP installer (http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/jre-8u152-windows-i586.exe), then download the latest updated tar.gz file here https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre8-downloads-2133155.html or my FTP http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/java/. Installer packages after Version 8 Update 152 do NOT work correctly on XP, so to manually update to the current version follow the instructions here: Or here:

Versions of uBlock Origin > 1.16.20=1.16.18 for Google Chrome now require Chrome version >=52.0; Advanced Chrome will advertise itself on Google Store as v54.20.6530.0, so it will allow the download and install of latest version of uBlock0; but because, in essence, AdvChr is Chrome v48.0+51.0, it does not support the Javascript functions of uBlock0 > 1.16.20 (as already explained by heinoganda). The problem with Google Store is, unlike the Firefox extensions repository (AMO), that it does not offer previous versions of an extension, so once you upgrade to a non-working version of an extension, you can't revert back (at least easily) Chromium will allow for installation of unsigned extensions, so installing from uBlock0's GitHub repo is an option in this case; while in developer mode, you can convert the github downloaded 1.16.20 zip file into a proper .crx one: https://www.datafilehost.com/d/c5a80c4a In the case of Google Chrome 49 (and 50, for Vista users), you should be stuck at version 1.16.18 (IDK whether v1.16.20, identical to 1.16.18, was properly released in Google Store), so no problem with upgrading to an incompatible version there; but what if you want to install uBlock0 v1.16.18 for the first time/re-install? Release branch Chrome will disable any non-signed extension (i.e. not coming from their store), even installed during dev mode, at next browser restart ; I have managed to track down a signed version of uBlock0 v1.16.18, at the admin's discretion, I have uploaded it to: https://www.datafilehost.com/d/dff0eb77 Maybe @sdfox7 is interested in permanently archiving it onto his server... This is a limitation of the legacy version of uBlock0 v1.16.4.4 (XUL) installable on Pale (New) Moon; while I find that some sites work OK (e.g. https://adblockplus.org/subscriptions), the one you linked to requires a more recent, WebExtension, version of uBlock0; but, as you probably know, you can manually install from there by copying raw filter URLs (Details -> View)

just got the v1479 exp update...will try and report back. Thanks in advance **UPDATE** No crashes on taskview launch now...working great so far. Thanks for the super fast exp release!!!

I've confirmed that the Logjam vulnerability can be fixed. Apparently the .exe version includes an old, vulnerable version of the OpenSSL libraries. So, I decided to try the Python version. I downloaded and installed the latest XP-compatible Python version, 3.4.4. (Technically, there's a 3.4.5 also, but it's source code only; no Windows installer exists. So if you want Python 3.4.5, you'll have to build it from source yourself.) Then I downloaded the Python version of ProxHTTPSProxy and tried to run it from a command window, but it started complaining about missing packages. So I had to learn how to install all the packages the author had used, using a Python tool called 'pip;' but eventually, it finally ran without complaining about any more missing packages. I then pulled up https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html in IE 8 and the news was good: "Your user agent is not vulnerable" to Logjam or any other attack tested for at that site! I got this good result with OpenSSL version 1.0.2j .DLLs. For most folks, I don't think it's worth the trouble to download and install Python along with all those missing packages; it's easier to just put banking sites in the SSL Pass-Thru section (so they use the browser's security instead of the proxy's security), or just use a different browser for those sites. I did this just to confirm that the Logjam vulnerability was present due to the OpenSSL version the original author used.