AstroSkipper

You're welcome! Spontaneous formation of a team of MSFN members to solve problems is great indeed.

If that is your complete list of performed steps, then some steps are missing there indeed. For example applying Tls 1.2.reg. installing latest Windows Update Agent 7.6 and so on. And what is ProxHTTPS? Maybe you mean HTTPSProxy. I recommend doing all steps again. Step by step, following my guide. And install ProxHTTPSProxy's or HTTPSProxy's generated root certificate in Trusted Root Certification Authority under account local computer. So, a lot to do. If you have questions relating to MU, ask in this thread. But if you come in trouble relating to one of these proxies, post your problem in my thread https://msfn.org/board/topic/183352-proxhttpsproxy-and-httpsproxy-in-windows-xp-for-future-use/ Regards, AstroSkipper

By the way my "Complete guide for restoring Microsoft Update in IE" as well as my "Final fix of error code 0x80072f8f while accessing WU or MU web site" are tested instructions and definitely complete. If all is done carefully and properly, it will work in any case. If not, then there is a problem in your installation generally.

Describe extensively what you have done so far! Normally if all instructions of both posts have been performed properly, you shouldn't have any error codes. Therefore you missed a step. Check all steps again! PS: @WULover refers to these four updates: KB4467770, KB4019276, KB4493435, KB94228-V3. Install them again!

In my article "ProxHTTPSProxy and HTTPSProxy in Windows XP for future use" you will find the solution for error code 0x80072F8F. Look here and have fun:

Hi, at first read carefully my "Complete guide for restoring Microsoft Update in IE" in this post: If you have trouble with ProxHTTPSProxy, then you can find everything about it in this post:

Hi to all, I have updated the content of my article in first post. Due to the fact that some of you had problems when running ProxHTTPSProxy or HTTPSProxy in older systems I have examined the correlation of crashes with the SSE2 capability of a CPU. The current results can be found in sections Prerequisites and Versions. Furthermore both versions of Root Certificate Updater have been updated and are now of 02/24/2022. Regards, AstroSkipper

In your linked post the solution was to check if Microsoft Client Network is properly installed.

Due to the fact that some of you had problems when running ProxHTTPSProxy or HTTPSProxy in older systems I have examined the correlation of crashes with the SSE2 capability of a CPU. The current results can be found in sections Prerequisites and Versions of this post: @maile3241 I have mentioned your findings relating to getting access to MU in Windows XP Professional x64 and linked your post.

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

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

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. But what I don't understand is how you can keep getting stuck on negative aspects when there are so many positives. There are certainly other things to get excited about.

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

And now, exceptionally one comment totally off-topic. @feodor2 I hope you'll get home safe, and I wish you and your family all the best! This is coming from a person having the greatest respect for you! I think I do speak here in the name of many people! Hoping, everything will end well, AstroSkipper

Of course, it's just my opinion after analyzing the facts. Anyway, you're welcome!

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!

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: 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.

Have you taken this screenshot using ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a in IE6?

Let me have a look at the top of your browser window with information about TLS.

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?

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.

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".

You're right. A fully functional system is great, especially when it wasn't expected.

We must not forget the credits to @xpandvistafan. But anyway, you're welcome and thanks for your nice comment!

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.