AstroSkipper

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.

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: 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.

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.

Of course you have to know where your installation iso is from. You should trust your source in any case or you have to create your own CD. It's not a big thing!

There are a lot of clean installations using a CD including SP3 and IE8. If I had to install from scratch I would use a version which contains all updates until 2014 and therefore including IE8.

Of course,. I said to @Dave-H some posts above the more the better and he agreed by replying the more the merrier.

But does anyone still use IE6 in Windows XP seriously? IE8 is crap but IE6...No way!

Very strange! WSUS server + WUMT was the first method which worked without any problems from the first time I tried. Yes, it's the same.

My version of 11/12/2019 is probably the same that you have used from November 2019. Then it works offline with this version but using WSUS server + WUMT doesn't work in your system. Is that correct?

I assume it depends on the version of wsusscn2.cab file you have used for offline scanning. My version is of 11/12/2019 and works like a charme.

Yes, you have to use two DataStore.edb files, one for WSUS server and one for MU web site. One for all didn't work in my system either.

Thanks for commenting! And now I have a mathematical statement for you: @Windows7fan = @xpandvistafan I think after evaluation the boolean truth value has to be set to true. What do you think? PS: I hope today is my day!