Nomen

Here's what I found. FFCE = Firefox Community edition (Roytam's version) FFBE = Firefox Bon Echo edition aka 2.0.0.22pre (what I've been using for years) Differences and similarities (FFCE / FFBE) TLS 1.3 no / no TLS 1.2 yes/ no TLS 1.1 yes/ no TLS 1.0 yes/yes SSL 3 yes/yes SSL 2 no / no Server Name Indication (SNI) Yes/Yes Secure Renegotiation Yes/No TLS compression No/No Session tickets No/No OCSP stapling No/No Signature algorithms (FFCE): SHA256/RSA, SHA384/RSA, SHA1/RSA, SHA256/ECDSA, SHA384/ECDSA, SHA1/ECDSA, SHA256/DSA, SHA1/DSA Signature algorithms (FFBE): none listed? Named Groups (FFCE same as FFBE): secp256r1, secp384r1, secp521r1 Next Protocol Negotiation No/No Application Layer Protocol Negotiation No/No SSL 2 handshake compatibility No/No Cipher Suites (in order of preference) Both list same ciphers, but different order

I downloaded this (Retrozilla-2.1 with TLS 1.2 support: https://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/rzbrowser-tls12-20180504.7) and unpacked it and ran it. It appears identical to my FF 2.0.0.20 version except that it calls itself "Firefox community edition" or something like that. I think it says version 2.0.0.2. I don't see TLS 1.2 in the security options.

Does a technet subscription still get you a bunch of licenses for Win-7 (and a bunch more other stuff)?

Have a look here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/176381-win-7-renaming-folder-item-not-found-when-just-create-mess-after-october-updatesrollups/?tab=comments#comment-1134596 I have found that kb 958559 causes this behavior on Win-7 SP1 Ultimate 32-bit: - not showing (not having) any Libraries - not being able to create new libraries, and - giving an "Item not found" message when creating new folders or renaming existing ones.

I'd like to know if win-7 and XP is also vulnerable to this - and how exactly does this thing get into/onto a system in the first place. https://betanews.com/2018/09/05/windows-task-scheduler-bug-malware/ It's a little over a week since a vulnerability in the Windows Task Scheduler was revealed. A patch for the 0-day has been released by third party security firm 0patch, but there's bad news for anyone who hasn't secure their system against the security threat -- malware writers are already taking advantage of the flaw. The exploit was partly facilitated by the fact that the source code for a proof-of-concept exploit for the ALPC LPE vulnerability -- as well as a binary -- was published on GitHub. Now a group that has been named PowerPool has been spotted using the code in a malware campaign.

Starting in, I guess it was spring 2016 I got serious about making a win-7 install image using RT7. My focus was 32-bit win-7 ultimate. I started with win-7 SP1 installation disk and acquired a ton of individual KB's, and separated out the "bad" kb's (win-10 nags, telemetry, etc). By mid to late August 2016 I had my "final" version, which was SP1 + 281 KB's rolled in. The last kb (numerically speaking) was 3179573. The last kb I was keeping track of (but not installed) was 3173040. So at that point it would have been early September 2016, and that's when (I think) MS changed to a monthly cumulative rollup - a single update that contains god knows what. At the time I was asking if anyone was taking those things apart to get at (and maybe evaluate) the individual kb's but my impression was (and continues to be) - no - nobody is doing that. So that's when I stopped caring (because with MS there is no trust) so on the handful of win-7 systems I either use or manage, I've not done any updating on them AT ALL since August 2016.

Schtasks seems to search for tasks by looking through system folders? Odd. I would have thought that scheduled tasks were stored in the registry or a centralized file, not helter-skelter like this. I take it that for the following list, the root-level folder is c:\windows... For these folders: Folder: \ Folder: \Microsoft Folder: \Microsoft\Windows Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Media Center Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\PLA the response is: INFO: There are no scheduled tasks presently available at your access level. Given that I'm running this at admin level, and given that that this is a windows-NT-based operating system, I am therefore not confident that I am getting a list of tasks that I would think should be "presently available at my access level". But taken at face value, I'm being told that there are "no" scheduled tasks located in those folders. (why tasks should be organized by folder is beyond me). For the following folders, the "next run time" is either disabled or N/A and the status is either Ready or Unknown: Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Active Directory Rights Management Services Client Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\AppID Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Autochk Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Bluetooth Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\CertificateServicesClient Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Location Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\MemoryDiagnostic Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\MUI Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Multimedia Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\NetTrace Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\PerfTrack Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Ras Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\RemoteAssistance Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Shell Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\SoftwareProtectionPlatform Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Task Manager Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Tcpip Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\TextServicesFramework Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\UPnP Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\User Profile Service Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\WDI Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Windows Error Reporting Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Windows Filtering Platform Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Windows Media Sharing Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\WindowsColorSystem Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Wininet For the following, they are showing a specific next-run-time. I am showing the taskname, next run time, and Status: Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Application Experience AitAgent 7/13/2018 2:30:00 AM Unknown ProgramDataUpdater 7/13/2018 12:30:00 AM Unknown Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Customer Experience Improvement Program Consolidator 7/12/2018 6:00:00 PM Could not start KernelCeipTask 7/19/2018 3:30:00 AM Unknown UsbCeip 7/14/2018 1:30:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Defrag ScheduledDefrag 7/18/2018 1:46:48 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Diagnosis Scheduled 7/15/2018 1:00:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Maintenance WinSAT 7/15/2018 1:00:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Power Efficiency Diagnostics AnalyzeSystem 7/17/2018 8:33:11 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\RAC RacTask 7/12/2018 11:14:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Registry RegIdleBackup 7/17/2018 12:29:18 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\SystemRestore SR 7/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Unknown Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\Time Synchronization SynchronizeTime 7/15/2018 1:00:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows\WindowsBackup ConfigNotification 7/13/2018 10:00:00 AM Ready Folder: \Microsoft\Windows Defender MP Scheduled Scan 7/13/2018 5:33:06 AM Unknown I am seeing defrag events in the event logs, and they are indicating that defrag ran fine, no problems. But I think it's running too often and it's probably something that I'd like to run manually instead of automatically. Other than that, I see one item above (Consolidator) that could not start. And I see that system restore and windows backup are set to run on July 13 even though the control panel settings have them disabled (I just love NT-based Windows!). Other than that, it's not intutive for me to see if any of these other various tasks would involve shadow copy service.

> > If I want to create a backup or restore point, I'll do it myself, manually. > Even in this case you still need VSS. I should have said "I don't really intend to perform backups or create restore points" so I don't want this vss crap running or taking up system resources. I had to temporarily turn on the two shadow-copy services in order to run the command line "vssadmin list shadowstorage" - and that gave me "No items found that satisfy the query". Ok, fine. Control-panel / System / System protection has Protection Settings - Protection (off). Configure restore settings has Restore Settings -> Turn off system protection. Disk space usage - current usage 0 bytes. So I'm still stumped, wondering why the system is throwing VSS / Volume shadow copy events in the event log when I'm doing my best to tell the system to not use or enable any such service.

I have disabled windows updates and have not installed any new software recently, so I don't know why the system would be trying to create restore points so frequently. I have now disabled all 3 of these services for a couple of days and this is now what I'm seeing in event log: --------------------- Volume Shadow Copy Service error: Unexpected error calling routine CoCreateInstance. hr = 0x80070422, The service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it. Operation: Instantiating VSS server Event ID 8193 ----------------- Volume Shadow Copy Service information: The COM Server with CLSID {e579ab5f-1cc4-44b4-bed9-de0991ff0623} and name IVssCoordinatorEx2 cannot be started. [0x80070422, The service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it. Operation: Instantiating VSS server Event ID 13 ----------------- What keeps trying to use or activate the VSS server, and how can I disable this? If I want to create a backup or restore point, I'll do it myself, manually. If the purpose of this VSS crap is something else, then what is it?

To add more info: I have "Microsoft Software Shadow Copy Provider" service set to Disabled, Volume Shadow Copy service set to Manual, and Windows Backup service set to Manual - I see that it's current status is "Started" and Volume Shadow Copy is not started. Does anyone know, or can give an explanation, as to the inter-relationship between those 3 services - in terms of what am I really missing if I disable all 3? I have never initiated a Windows Backup on this system nor have I knowingly configured Windows Backup to do anything on a schedule nor do I intend to. BlackViper has one or more of those services disabled under a bare-bones configuration, but for a Tweaked config they are set to manual. Is there an explanation as to what a "volume shadow copy" is or why I would want/need it, and why are there 2 different "shadow copy" services anyways? What do they do / what uses them / do I really need them?

Win-7 ultimate, 32-bit. I'm seeing many instances of these two events in pairs in Application event log: ------------ Volume Shadow Copy Service error: Error creating the Shadow Copy Provider COM class with CLSID {65ee1dba-8ff4-4a58-ac1c-3470ee2f376a} [0x80070422, The service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it. Event ID 12292 ----------- Volume Shadow Copy Service information: The COM Server with CLSID {65ee1dba-8ff4-4a58-ac1c-3470ee2f376a} and name SW_PROV cannot be started. [0x80070422, The service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it. Event id 13 ------------ Volume shadow copy service is set to manual startup. Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Backup and Restore says "Windows backup has not been set up" If something is trying to happen based on system scheduler, how do I check (and disable) said item? Otherwise, what is causing these events? Edit: I also notice this event ID happens in conjunction with the above 2: --------------- The VSS service is shutting down due to idle timeout. event ID 8224 ----------------

I've got a win7 laptop (core i7) with a wifi connection speed that's at least good for 10 mb/sec download (according to speedtest.net). It has a mapping to a shared folder on a win-98 system. A file-copy test of a large file from the win-98 to the win-7 system runs at 430 - 440 kbytes/sec. I try the same test from the 98 system to a win-xp netbook (intel atom) and the file-copy speed is 1754 kbytes/sec. The XP and 98 systems are hardwired (ethernet) to the lan, while the win-7 system is wifi connected to the lan. Anything I can do to increase file-copy speed between the win-7 and 98 systems?

There was a web page with 4 embedded videos - 3 from youtube and 1 from twitter. One of the youtube videos just sat there with a swirling circle (like it's buffering to play but doesn't end up playing) and the video from twitter doesn't play (puts up a message "we cannot play the video in this browser. please try a different web browser". This is firefox 39.0b7. I then went and installed Avant browser (most current version) and all 4 video's on the page played.

Thanks. Setting the kex ignore settings for child processes for outlook.exe fixed the problem.

Assuming there might be a consensus on this, I ask what "the best" browser is these days for win-7 32-bit. I generally try to use the oldest version of Firefox that will do what I want (like render embedded video's in web pages) but I'm finding that the last version of FF 39 that I recently upgraded to has some issues. Something that will allow me to enter an IP address and /or non-standard port-number for a URL, and will work sites with Java content and not have SSL or other protocol issues, Any thoughts on this?

I'm not sure if this is a kernelex issue or not (and if it is, is this the place to ask) but here goes. On my win-98 system, when I double-click on an .mp3 attachment in an email while using outlook 2000, I am asked if I want to save the file or play it. The file is rendered with a VLC icon in the email, by the way. If I select "play the file" I get a message window with the Title-bar "Error Starting Program". The message says "The libvlccore.dll file is linked to missing export kernel32.dll:CreateTimerQueueTimer." In all other instances when I want to play something with a VLC icon (say, from explorer) there is no problem. I have VLC version 2.0.8 and KernelEx version 4.05.2016.17. Any easy way to fix this?

Go to one of those sites that will display your user-agent and post here what it says about your Opera user-agent string.

I note that when Ironman69 shows the Opera version in the video, the OS is shown as Windows 98se. I was under the impression that for Opera 12.02 to be installed on Win-98, you had to set a couple of registry keys to indicate the OS was (at least) Windows 2000 (indeed, that is what Opera shows on my win-98 system). And I just checked, and no, my Opera 12.02 still can't play youtube videos, although I've messed with a lot of files and I'm probably running the 12.18 Opera.exe with 12.02 Opera.dll so I can't be sure if not being able to play youtube is my fault. Has anyone else with win-98 and Opera 12.02 been able to duplicate Ironman69's claim? Edit: Or it could have been that installing some recent version of Flash, you needed to set the registry to indicate Windows 2000 or higher? But that would have been years ago.

I've downloaded the Security9 file, and I'm downloading the 95-XP file now (3.6 gb) - but it's going to take 6+ hours. I'll post a directory listing for both of those later (unless there's an objection to that). I don't intend to get the 6 gb of Vista files. Edit: ok, here's the file listings for WinUpdates_95-XP32.iso and Security9_enu_15.iso. If there's any .txt files you see in there that you'd like me to attach to this post, let me know. WUFLOS.txt Security9.txt

I notice that archive.org has a collection of ISO files called "Windows Updates for Legacy Operating Systems (95-Vista)" or WULOS that is showing a publication date of 2018 (January 25, so just a few days ago). I don't know if posting the link here would be approved of. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything there that is new or useful vs what we already know or have regarding those operating systems.

> With all due respect, there are NO issues whatsoever with having a Windows 7 in a .vhd Yes there are. (1) I don't want to have buy 8 gb of new ram (2 x 4) to replace the 4 gb (2 x 2) that are in this particular laptop to be able to run win-7 in a vhd without the hard drive thrashing all time and (2) running any OS in a virtual environment is a huge comprimise in terms of not being able to access and utilize fully the hardware of the host machine to it's fullest / best capability. And then having to wait for the host OS to boot and then boot the desired virtual OS every time I want to use it. And I don't even know if the particular version of win-10 on the laptop in question supports vhd. > Multibooting Windows (any version) on a SAME partition has never been supported, and for the reasons That is not the situation I am contimplating or wondering why MS doesn't / can't support. I am fully prepared to carve a second partition out of the existing hard drive and have win-7 installed on it. I am just wondering if I will end up with functional dual-boot machine if I do that, and if not, what I'd have to do with the boot record or mbr in order to get dual-boot win-10/win-7 working. I stand by my supposition that wanting to install win-7 on a machine that came with win-10 pre-installed (while keeping the win-10 installation) can't possibly be a rare thing.

I just can't believe that a situation where someone acquires a pc/laptop (as in my case, a refurbished Dell 6230) with win-10 pre-installed (and no win-10 install media) and wants to install win-7 so the pc is dual-boot - I can't believe that isin't a more common situation than it appears to be, and hence the process of doing that wouldn't have been worked out by now, with youtube video's, etc. I would think that we're way past the ancient days of "you have to install the older OS first because the older OS is really dumb and is *really different* than the newer OS. I can't believe that Win-7 would find a win-10 installation so foreign or strange such that even if win-7 were installed to it's own empty partition that it couldn't make it self compatible in a dual-boot way with a pre-existing win-10 install. Why on earth would MS not anticipate that situation (for power users, developers, etc) and not bestow that ability on win-7 and later versions? (installation interoperability and compatibility I'm talking about). If MS wants to really push win-10 adoption (even on older PC's as in this case) then why make it hard or impossible to seemlessly install win-7 (for those that have the media and key and insist on running it) on a system that already has win-10 (to give a working dual-boot configuration)? Because the alternative is (apparently) to give the user no choice but to wipe away the win-10 install when he's installing win-7 - and thus the pc is now win-7 only (because the user either doesn't really care enough about win-10 or even have win-10 media and spend the time to put win-10 back on). So MS loses - the system is now win-7 and they've lost a win-10 system (with it's app store and future potential revenue stream).

If I've got a win-10 system and I want to install win-7 from a bootable thumb drive, will the win-7 installation process correctly configure the (single) hard drive for dual-boot and preserve the existing win-10 setup? Would I have to create a new partition on the existing hard drive first to do this (and can that be done from win-10)?

That's what I figured. So why wasn't everyone running around back in 2000 - 2006 screaming that hackers were going to be stealing passwords from win-9x kernel memory back then? For a typical single-user windoze system (9x or NT) - what's in the kernel ram that is such a big deal to get your hands on? In the bigger picture, what does this say about the whole concept of having a separate admin (or root) access level vs user-level access to a system (again, thinking only of single-user, non-enterprise systems)? Given all the hundreds of ways that separation has been shown to be faulty (on Windows NT systems) over the years, what has that basic design idea actually accomplished in the windows PC world? I know it has led a a great deal of frustration (you don't have the rights or permissions to do this or that) so what did users get in return? Looks more and more like nothing.

I don't know if there's a thread anywhere on MSFN discussing the recent Meltdown and Spectre CPU-related vulnerabilities, but I thought I'd post here a question about how this might affect (or not) win-9x/me. Would code (ie - code typically executed by or in a browser) be able to perform Meltdown memory-scanning activities on a 9x system?