
AstroSkipper
MemberContent Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by AstroSkipper
-
I think it's not unimportant to have only one ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate in your system. If regenerating a new one leads to getting two of them then something is going wrong. Maybe your system restores this second old one. So delete all ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificates, make a reboot at first and have a look if your system has restored the old one before regenerating a new one. And only if you want try my suggestion two posts above: "Now I have two suggestions for you. First delete both ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificates and generate a new one from 2017 to 2027 following the guess of @Mathwiz. Delete all certificates in your ProxHTTPSProxy certs folder and let ProxHTTPSProxy generate new certs for all MU related sites (www.microsoft.com, download.windowsupdate.com, fe2.update.microsoft.com, www.update.microsoft.com, update.microsoft.com and so on; you can use Wireshark or more simple NirSoft's HTTPNetworkSniffer for finding all connected sites) by using New Moon browser or Mypal. Then try to access MU using IE and look if it works. Check your settings in Internet Zone too (relevant for accessing http://fe2.update.microsoft.com). The idea is letting a new browser generate these MU relevant certificates. If that doesn't work for you you can go back to ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate valid until 2025 which was the one originally provided. Of course you can do this all using HTTPSProxy at first too."
-
@Dave-H Ok, your screenshot was a bit misleading. The certificate to the right is in your ProxHTTPSProxy's certs folder and the one to the left is your system root certificate. Therefore you have two ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificates due to the fact that you haven't deleted the old one before installing regenerated certificate. Is that right? Now I have two suggestions for you. First delete both ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificates and generate a new one from 2017 to 2027 following the guess of @Mathwiz. Delete all certificates in your ProxHTTPSProxy certs folder and let ProxHTTPSProxy generate new certs for all MU related sites (www.microsoft.com, download.windowsupdate.com, fe2.update.microsoft.com, www.update.microsoft.com, update.microsoft.com and so on; you can use Wireshark or more simple NirSoft's HTTPNetworkSniffer for finding all connected sites) by using New Moon browser or Mypal. Then try to access MU using IE and look if it works. Check your settings in Internet Zone too (relevant for accessing http://fe2.update.microsoft.com). The idea is letting a new browser generate these MU relevant certificates. If that doesn't work for you you can go back to ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate valid until 2025 which was the one originally provided. Of course you can do this all using HTTPSProxy at first too. Due to the fact that HTTPSProxy and ProxHTTPSProxy is working flawlessly for me and for other members it will work for you too. There is one thing or more you have missed and you have to find it. Don't give up!
-
@Dave-H I am a little bit confused. In your list of Trusted Root Certification Authorities I can see two ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificates. But why is your new one issued to *.update.microsoft.com as well as to ProxHTTPSProxy CA? I do not have that. That's no good I think. The dates look as expected. But I assume you can't have both due to the fact that only one instance of ProxHTTPSProxy should use its certificate. Comparing to my ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate I would delete the "right one" with "Issued to: *.update.microsoft.com". The ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate belongs to ProxHTTPSProxy and not to MU website. Truth be told I would rather delete both (make a backup before incl. Certs folder) and let ProxHTTPSProxy create a new one (e.g. from 2020 to 2030 or 2018 to 2028). The idea is before generating a new certificate by ProxHTTPSProxy you have to delete its old one. One instance of ProxHTTPSProxy, one ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate. For me it looks like a bit messed up. But maybe @Mathwiz could tell us more.
-
And here is my log of ProxHTTPSProxy when MU searching for updates has finished successfully: https://imgur.com/q5ezkA9 @Dave-H Comparing your log to ours I discovered you are using a more recent version of ProxHTTPSProxy. You've got urllib3/1.25.7 and we've got urllib3/1.25.3. I don't know if it is relevant.
-
@Dave-H No, you have to set back to year 2020 and only to generate in HTTPSProxy a new certificate valid until 2030.To let HTTPSProxy do that you have to delete the old one called HTTPSProxyCA.crt. After that you can turn back time to current date and time. I did often such manipulation without any serious problems. Believe me! And the best is manipulations of HTTPSProxy don't harm your ProxHTTPSProxy installation. You can try whatever you want.
-
@Dave-H How did you get the log file? Where is the log file located? I couldn't find anyone. And what is about turning back time to 2020 and letting HTTPSProxy generate a new one with duration of 10 years beginning at time of creation? Certs folder of HTTPSProxy must be cleared. Then we will know whether our guess is correct or not. And check your Trusted Zone. Trusted Zone to high with only these three urls related to MU: http://www.update.microsoft.com, https://www.update.microsoft.com and http://update.microsoft.com. Disable in IE settings "Check for server certificate revocation". https://imgur.com/UBI7btL
-
@Mathwiz My ProxHTTPSProxy CA certificate is valid until 2025 but my HTTPSProxy CA certificate is valid until 2030 which was recreated in 2020. I deleted all certificates in \Certs and site certificates were recreated when visiting these sites. I have installed both Proxy versions and after configuring properly they are working on Microsoft Update site without any problems.
-
@Dave-H Use the folder HTTPSProxy! Both are identical versions except for one file and this is config.ini. In folder HTTPSProxy there is one, in folder Update HTTPSProxy is none due to the idea you will update an existing installation and don't want to loose your settings which would be overwitten by new one. In first installation you have no config.ini so you are working from scratch. I think that was the idea of @Thomas S.. He released two versions but first release had been faulty so users had to update.
-
@maile3241 As I already mentioned some posts above copy your patched file first to system32\dllcache and then to system32. If it is blocked do it from outside using linux or WinPE. Restart computer and check if both files are still there. And then...hopefully... But one thing I have to say. It would be much easier if you read your posts a little bit more intently. Hope it'll work finally.
-
@maile3241 A normal Windows XP Professional system has a folder to backup system files to restore them. This is the dllcache folder. In most systems c:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache\. I really don't know what kind of system you have. In my dllcache folder there are currently 3426 files. If this folder doesn't exist in your system create one and copy your patched dll into. No more I can say. But you didn't mention if now SFC is disabled and copying of wuaueng.dll is working after this long procedure. Oh @Dave-H is right. Probably you have hidden your system files. Change it in explorer.
-
@Dave-H Of course there are differences. HTTPSProxy ran from the very first I tried to access MU without any problems. Configuring was very easy. ProxHTTPSProxy didn't run from the very first. I had a lot of trials to get it work. Configuring wasn't easy. I had certificate problems too. In HTTPSProxy the certificate management is much easier. Beyond that HTTPSProxy is more user-friendly compared to ProxHTTPSProxy and can be accessed in SysTray at any time incl. switching on and off. By the way did you try my attached ProxHTTPSProxy's config,ini in this post? For me it is working smoothly.
-
@Dave-H And if you still have problems to access MU you could give HTTPSProxy a try. You can install both on your machine they are portable but do not run both at same time i.e. they may not be executed in RAM at the same time otherwise they interfere. I don't know if I am allowed to upload HTTPSProxy due to the fact that @Thomas S. hasn't been here for a long time and he is the author. What do you think?