Jump to content

AstroSkipper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,524

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    236

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Posts posted by AstroSkipper

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper

    1 hour ago, WULover said:

    You don't have another solution for my error ?

    Of course, I have. Forget about Windows 2000! As you already wrote in a post above:

    Quote

    It's too old...

    And you are absolutely right. But for all not reasonable people there is an antivirus tool which works with Windows 2000 too, called ClamWin. Here is a link: https://clamwin.com/  :)
     

    PS: By the way I don't think you have an infection in your system. :whistle:

    0

    flash player created locked registry keys

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper

    12 hours ago, justacruzr2 said:

    The first key the search encountered I was unable to delete.  It is locked in some fashion that even as the Administrator with full permissions (I checked that by right clicking on the registry key and selecting permissions) it will not let it be deleted.  What is going on here?  Anybody know?  I did make a backup before the install so I can put things back right but I'm curious since I've never run into this situation before.  

    Beside the manual method to get access to locked registry keys, as described in linked tutorial above,  you can use a tool called Registry Permission Tool. It's freeware and can be downloaded from the homepage of this tool: https://www.xeromag.com/fvshare.html :)

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper
    correction

    7 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

    Ok, i may get a warning again, but...

    Where did you get a warning? Everyone can and is allowed to express their opinion. Of course, the music makes the sound. We still live in a democracy and enjoy the right to freely express our opinions. We have to realize painfully again and again that this is not the case everywhere in the world!
    But anyway, I respect hard work. People are different and behave different. All these proxies are great, my favourite is HTTPSProxy, and we actually should be glad being able to use them.

    Quote

    AFAIK he updated couple libs, then compiled the thing as .exe, and also made a launcher script for the lazy. Then kept it all private! Just like his other tools! 

    It just ticks me the wrong way to see mainly his build advertised here despite it not being publicly available, while there is no mention of the always available official builds. 

    Imagine someone new here sees that, then goes to ask for this private build, but the guy hasn't even been around for almost two years ...

    But what I don't understand is how you can keep getting stuck on negative aspects when there are so many positives. :no:
    There are certainly other things to get excited about. :yes:

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper
    addition

    4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

    What's so great about the build by @heinoganda to receive so much praise by MSFN members as if he was the original dev?!?

    ProxHTTPSProxy and its reinvented successor ProxHTTPSProxyMII were originally developed by whenever. Therefore, first credits to whenever of course. If you want to know which modifications @heinoganda had made to ProxHTTPSProxyMII, you have to read following thread completely:

    There you can find all changelogs and information about @heinoganda's releases. For example he created ProxHTTPSProxy_PSwitch.exe to start and set up the proxy automatically and delete its settings when closing. He did a lot of modifications and updating. Simply said its version is more recent than the original version. I wouldn't say we praise him. But it's a kind of respect to people having done hard work to a project.

    4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

    I'm not having any of his "PM me to get the download link" crap...

    Providing programs in that way I don't like too. You feel like a supplicant if you want a download link.

    4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

    I have used the official version of ProxHTTPSProxyMII on my XP without any problems ever since i heard about it.

    My favourite one is HTTPSProxy. @Thomas S. provided it in form of a download link. Unfortunately the link is invalid for a long time, but I decided to provide a fresh one because it would be a pity if such a program were simply lost. You can find the link under section Downlads in my thread: 

    Anyway, HTTPSProxy is more comfortable, easier to manage and control. In a nutshell, simply great! :thumbup

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper
    correction

    14 hours ago, maile3241 said:
    14 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

    Expand  

    Exactly! That's why it also works with IE6. Wouldn't it make more sense to use this version instead of @heinoganda's version since you don't necessarily need the PosReady updates?

    Generally, no! Due to security reasons only. We do not use ProxHTTPSProxy for accessing MU exclusively. The more recent, the more safer! We want to establish secure connections using IE engine in a couple of applications. But for using to access MU only, my answer is yes!  :yes:

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    1 hour ago, maile3241 said:

    Yes I did.

    As I mentioned above I do not use these OSs and therefore I can't check what's going on. Windows XP 64 bit has not received any updates since 2015 and has no native TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 support. There are no updates to add these features subsequently. Without further analysis, I would say that MU access via IE obviously requires an older version of ProxHTTPSProxy in such a system, heinoganda's version is already too up-to-date. I think there are problems with SHA256, SHA1 seems to work fine. In the changelog of whenever's ProxHTTPSProxy you can read:

    Quote

    Version 1.3.1 (20151001)
    --------------
    * Certifications are now signed via SHA256 instead of SHA1

    I guess that is probably the crux of the matter. You have used a version still supporting SHA1 for signing certificates, the more recent seem to be problematic due to signing via SHA256.  :dubbio:

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    39 minutes ago, maile3241 said:

    The version V1.3 is even more "flexible".

    What does that mean? There is nothing "flexible". ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a is an older version and does not have the modifications of @heinoganda's releases . I assume WU does not work with modern ciphers in IE, especially IE6, of a Win XP 64 Bit system and TLS 1.2 is not supported. Therefore TLS 1.0 is probably sufficient. What do you know about the ciphers of ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a?

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    1 hour ago, maile3241 said:

    @AstroSkipper What do you say? Is it a good option?

    Just to clarify. You are using ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a to access  Microsoft Update in Windows XP 64 Bit and guess it could work in Windows Server 2003 too. In Windows 2000 it doesn't work, you have to let ProxHTTPSProxy run in your host system to connect to your Win 2000 VM. And you need to apply the same Windows Update patch which is used in Windows XP. Is that correct? Anyway, if it is working then it will be an option, of course. I do not use these OSs, therefore I can't say more about that. I thought @heinoganda's ProxHTTPSProxy would run in Windows XP 64 Bit. I'm not particularly interested in the other OSs. But sometimes the route is the goal. :)

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper

    On 3/4/2022 at 12:19 PM, maile3241 said:

    I found a compatible ProxhttpsProxy version running on W2k without extended kernel. Unfortunately I get the error code 0x80072F05. Another problem is that the SHA1 certificate expired in 2010.

    Link to ProxhttpsProxy: https://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1618

    This is the version of ProxHTTPSProxy which was originally created by "whenever" for Proxomitron as a SSL Helper Program. This isn't a modified version of @heinoganda. Proxomitron issued this certificate for ProxHTTPSProxy. You have to let Proxomitron generate a new one. Anyway I don't think it will work as a replacement for @heinoganda's ProxHTTPSProxy.

    PS: @heinoganda did a lot of modifications to get it working. Therefore without him probably a "mission impossible".

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper
    correction

    17 minutes ago, ExtremeGrief said:

    OnePiece Update Packs contain all updates released for XP and PosReady.

    I do not trust these statements. I am mathematician and I have to check by myself, to analyze and to be sure that all is done in the way I wanted to.
     

    PS: Of course for a lot of users these Update Packs are the most simple way of updating and often sufficient.

    0

    On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by AstroSkipper
    addition

    1 hour ago, ExtremeGrief said:

    I don't understand why people need WU website for updating, when OnePiece Update Packs exist, which makes it much easier to update? If someone can explain to me, thanks!

    Ok, I will try it. At first you are absolutely right. Update Packs are very useful, especially if you are offline or an internet connection can't be established. I used them too in the past. But sometimes they don't do their job properly, and moreover it can happen that some updates are missing. Only by connecting to MU or WU you can check easily whether an update is missing or not. For me a very good method to find out that an installation is complete and really up to date or not. In any case the best way to install or reinstall Windows has been described by me in post above: 

    21 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

    The best way to install Windows XP is to use an image of a working XP partition using Redeploy by Macrium Reflect or similar programs such as Aomei Backupper. In this case you have an universal medium which can be installed to any computers, and you are always up to date. No need of installing tons of programs and updates.

    The feature "Redeploy" means installing this special image system-independent. :)

    PS: By the way OnePiece Update Packs are great and I do recommend them too. And they exist in a lot of languages. I've got a German version in my private archive, just to be safe.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...