FranceBB

Your personal computers in your household don't count. However, if you use XP at your workplace and you are authorised to take a picture, then that computer counts. Everybody here is running Windows XP. If we just take a picture of our computers, it doesn't make much sense. The point is to find companies that run Windows XP, Windows XP Media Center, Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows Server 2003 or Embedded systems like Windows XP Embedded, Windows Embedded Standard, Windows Embedded POSReady 2009. The point is to get an idea of how much XP is still used in offices and most important in embedded systems. It's a funny way to collect data.

I've been using the Windows Check Disk since March 2000, but I've always been told that it has to be used with the same OS. In other words, a Windows 2000 install shouldn't be scanned using a Windows XP CD and vice-versa, 'cause CHKDSK versions were created with a specific OS in mind and might misbehave while repairing another system. Here I am, 18 years later, without Windows 2000, but still using my XP CD (actually, I turned it into an ISO to use it via USB long time ago) whenever I have to do a check disk (I know that I could leave the OS repair itself, but I prefer to use the CD). Anyway, I now wonder: is really true what they told me 18 years ago and does it still apply to modern OS (Win Vista -> Win Vista / Win 7 -> Win7 / Win8 -> Win8 / Win8.1 -> Win 8.1 / Win10 -> Win10)? And how about Windows Server Versions? Let's say Windows Server 2008 R2. It's made with the Win7 kernel (revised and corrected) with added features. Can Windows Server be used to scan its Windows Desktop equivalent? Just asking out of curiosity. Thank you in advance. ^_^

Although I don't generally spoof Firefox, I do spoof Chromium 54 as the latest version of Chromium. Right now, I'm pretending to be running Chromium 69.0.3497.86. Together with ProxHTTPSProxy it works for many websites, however I still rely on Firefox for some of them that misbehave or have bugs. "C:\Programmi\Advanced Chrome\chrome.exe" --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.86 Safari/537.36"

@Dibya still, as I said in the chat, an emulated BIOS that runs on the top of a modded UEFI is not the solution as it might not work reliably (or at all) on the majority of hardware out there. @broken120x120 probably. Still, antivirus softwares still support XP and they will for quite some time, so we are talking about many years into the future. Avast, for instance, won't deploy Avast 19 to machines running XP, however Avast 18 will be supported and will receive updates for years, just like Avast 8 still receives updates for Windows 98SE computers. Security wise, I think there's nothing to worry about, at least for the near-future. And, unless a new major security issue will be discovered after April 2019, I don't think there will be problems, as running an Antivirus and a good Firewall will be enough.

I still rely on Firefox to open up many websites that don't work on Chromium 54 (that I always spoof as the latest version. I.E I'm currently spoofing it as Chromium 69). So far, it managed to load pretty much everything and I'm perfectly fine with that. I have the feeling that it's gonna be usable for quite some time.

Hi, I'm trying to make an SMB Share between Windows Server 2019 Datacenter and Windows XP. Both computers are in the same network and in the same workgroup, they can ping each other, but XP cannot access the SMB Share created by Windows Server 2019 Datacenter. They both see the Linux Raid, so I'm using it as "bridge" to move files between them, but it would be better to make XP connect to WS2019 directly. I think that XP can't see the share 'cause WS2019 is using an SMB version that is too high for XP, so how can I intentionally lower it in WS2019? Can I use different SMB version for different folders? I don't wanna lower it for everything, 'cause it was an old version of SMB that made Wannacrypt spread across the network of many corporations. Besides, the network administrator might give me a green light for lowering it for a single folder, but he would definitely give me a red light for lowering it for all the share. Thank you in advance.

Yes... that's weird... last time I tried to run Microsoft Update it ran smoothly and it found updates in a short amount of time. Maybe it also depends on the region? Maybe some Microsoft servers are now working fine for some regions and some others are not. Who knows.

I changed from "*.mega.co.nz" to "*mega.co.nz" in [SSL Pass-Thru] and it works. Apparently, the ".co.nz" domain is just a redirect to the ".nz" domain, which is now the main one. Removing the dot from the [SSL Pass-Thru] made it load correctly As to the certificates, of course I have them updated, I use your certificate updater on a regular basis Too bad. Maybe there will. Who knows. Time will tell. Still, I'm optimistic. ^_^

@heinoganda I've been using ProxHTTPS for a few days and it works as expected, however I'm having issues with Mega as it says NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID It's almost like if Mega actually knows that ProxHTTPS has changed the certificate information and refuses the connection thus preventing data leaks. Any idea? Oh, by the way, it would be interesting to add a TLS1.3 to TLS1.2 feature in the future (if Microsoft doesn't deliver TLS1.3 as promised).

Still, we are not in the 90s, nowadays it would seem unreal/a waste of time if I think about going to the bank to do basic things like checking a statement or paying my rent, paying Bills and so on. I mean, you have to get to your branch, sometimes it's close to where you live, sometimes it's not. If you live in a big city, you are better off using the tube 'cause it would be a nightmare going there with your car and... once you get there... there's probably a queue. Anyway, it's just an example, but my point is: technology is here to help and we should use it. Sure, there will always be bad guys working in the background, but once you are protected from the most common mass attacks, why should you care? I mean, if you are not a very important and famous person or a company, it's unlikely that they would target you specifically. And even if you are a VIP and you implement very strong defensive protections, if an attacker is skilled enough, he will always find a way, just like the NSA does with terrorists and other suspects to protect the country (even on Linux). Conclusion: As things are now, overall, I think that XP users with updates, Firewall and antivirus are not less safe than Win7 ones, but again it always comes to common sense.

"traffic is unencrypted on localhost:xxxxx" Assuming that you can access my Windows machine from the outside world and you can't. The Linux Switch I mentioned above makes sure that it stays in a NAT Network. In other words, all the devices connected to my subnet can talk to each other and to the NAS if enabled by the switch, but the switch makes sure that they stay in their own NAT and that they can't be accessible by the outside world and there's no port forwarding.

I see, so it's not like an old-fashioned proxy that sends all the traffic through a server somewhere in the world and gets it back, but it filters it internally in the machine. If that's correct, then I'm gonna ask you to send me an updated version once again 'cause I'll start using it again.

Yes, sorry for the typo, I meant crypt32.dll By the way, as to home banking, my XP is updated and I have Avast Premier with the full customer service support, which basically means that not only I'm protected, but if something screws up my computer (like a ransomware) the guys from Avast Support have to log into my computer and fix the problem. It's the same level of support that companies have. My actual layers of protection: Internet -> NordVPN (Open VPN Protocol with kill switch on the router) -> UFW (Linux Switch Firewall) -> Nod32 Premium (Linux Switch Antivirus) -> Windows XP Firewall -> Avast Premier Firewall -> Avast Premier Antivirus. I'm pretty confident I'm far more protected than many people running W7/8/8.1 or 10 who don't update anything, especially because Avast Premier is a pretty reliable product itself, but making it work as a second layer of security after Linux... well... simply makes my computer safe. You may be arguing that these layers of protection slightly slow internet down, but my speed is 2400 kB/s in download and 1600 kB/s in upload and is more than enough. As to the ping, I stopped playing games in 2012, 'cause when you start thinking about having your own family, you stop playing games and you grow up, so I don't really care if it's slightly higher than normal 'cause I don't even notice.

Filip Braun from the Avast Team is now working on it.

Yes, Microsoft introduced TLS1.2 support in XP, but ECC certificates can't be stored so it ends up with a mismatch and it doesn't work. Firefox 52.9 ESR supports TLS1.3 but you have to enable it as it's disabled by default Microsoft support also said that they are working on TLS1.3, so hopefully crypto.dll will be updated in the near future. Heinoganda did a really good job with his proxy: I have been using it in the past and it was really useful, but I stopped using it mainly because I still use XP to do home-banking and access to my investments and I don't know who owns the server. Of course, traffic still goes through HTTPS so it's supposed to be encrypted, but still...

Same here. If Microsoft really delivers TLS1.3 and no major security flaws are found, I have the feeling that we will still be around for quite some time. Not to mention that I am planning to ask Microsoft if they'll keep their Premium Support available after April 2019 and how much it would cost, 'cause if there are still a considerable amount of companies that are paying for it, they'll keep it and I would be more prone to pay for it rather than paying a W10 licence. After all, the US military services - including the navy and the air force - already said that they have specialised hardware and hand-written software running on XP-derivate and they didn't plan to upgrade anytime soon 'cause it would require a complete rewrite of the softwares and further tests before deploying them to the field. Imagine having to rewrite programmes written in C/C++ with the core in x86 ASM for radars, proximity controllers, navigation systems, airflow controllers, pressure stabilisers and many other things... I mean, it's possible and it would probably get some benefits from x64 and modern AVX512 intrinsics, but it would be a pain in the b- uh... I mean a nightmare to re-write, test and support.

You can access a physical hard drive via a virtual machine. For instance, I have two different drives, one with Fedora and one with XP. From virtual box I fire up XP directly from the MBR Hard Drive. Such function is called "raw disk access". If you think that your drive with XP might fail, you could just clone it. Anyway, if you are really willing to convert your xp into a vmdk file, there are countless ways, like using Easeus To-do backup: https://www.easeus.com/todo-backup-guide/convert-physical-to-virtual.html Last but not least, if you wanna migrate to another Windows version, migrate to Windows 10 and not 7. As much as I dislike the bloated piece of crap I use everyday called Windows 10, it's the latest version, it's kept updated every month and it will be supported for quite some time. Windows 7 is already living on borrowed time 'cause its support is gonna end at the end of 2020, a year and few months after the end of the XP one. It is currently receiving security updates only, it is limited to DX11, the latest .NET Framework can't be installed as well as metro apps (Apps for Windows) like WhatsApp for Windows, Skype App for Windows and so on.

Going to the grocery store has never been more satisfying. Here in the UK, we have self-checkout at both Saintsbury's and Tesco, which are the two largest companies. Well, it turns out they are running Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, at least the ones at Tesco. Considering how many stores Tesco has all over the UK, they are a considerable amount of machines (The one in the picture didn't display the unexpected item in bagging area error, it simply rebooted and since there's no keyboard, it started a check disk xD)

I just checked the site "Vudu" and oddly enough I got a white screen with nothing inside in both Chromium 54 and Firefox 52.9 ESR on Windows XP and also using Firefox 61 on Fedora 28 (Linux). I also clicked "View page source" and there was no code at all (just 1 line, blank). Weird... Probably something is blocking my traffic to that site; I bet is my ISP (M247 here in the UK) and I can't check it. Firefox 52.9 ESR Windows XP: Chromium 54 Windows XP: Firefox 61 Fedora 28 (Linux):

XP, 7, 8/8.1 and 10. Vista is affected as well, but I don't know whether MS will patch it or not.

Which version of chrome? If you are using the old Chrome 49, have you tried Chromium 54.20.6530.0? http://browser.taokaizen.com/ (It runs on XP).

It looks like a new exploitation technique that they say can bypass the Windows kernel protection measures has been found. It's called "turning tables" and it exploits Windows' page tables (yes, the page files used to write memory temporarily on your hard drive when you don't have enough RAM). In the page files, multiple processes can store the same code and call upon it when needed, which has been extremely useful in the past when hard drives were used, SSD didn't exist and RAM was very limited, so page-swapping was a very common task for the OS. Nowadays, many people have SSDs for which it's suggested to disable page files entirely 'cause they would cause too many "write/delete" and jeopardise the drive life. Besides, the ones that still have an hard drive, like me, have enough RAM nowadays, so I still have page files turned on, but with 16 GB DDR4, XP very rarely makes use of them. Anyway, because some of the share code written to the page files might belong to an higher privileged process, this new Turning Tables technique allows attackers to elevate the privileges of their code to higher levels, such as SYSTEM and it can also be used to alter applications running in sandboxes, which are isolated environments created for the sole purpose of protecting apps against such attacks. For instance, Turning Tables can be used to poison browsers that run inside a sandbox, such as Chrome. It looks like we are gonna get a new major kernel update with the next monthly update, I just hope that Microsoft doesn't rush it and ends up breaking some functionalities or makes the OS slower.

It would have been good, not just for eventual new features, but also because when a service pack is released, support is extended. Can you imagine Windows XP Service Pack 4 with official support to UEFI, GPT, USB 3.0/3.1, IE11, a new crypto.dll, many more functions in the kernel, proper DXVA2 support, official DX10 and DX11 and many other things...? It would have been a completely different story... :')

@antiproton.. I know, that's what happened during the last few months 'cause Windows Update took forever to scan and the automatic update service didn't manage to download anything 'cause it uses Windows Update via IE8 in the background, however I just tried to scan for updates using Windows Update (not the catalog, I mean the built-in IE8 Windows Update) and it actually managed to finish the scan in a reasonable amount of time without using many CPU cycles, so I believe that it will eventually scan for updates next month and this time it will find them, therefore the yellow shield is gonna pop up.

I confirm. I just tried to run it and it found the updates. I never thought I was gonna see the yellow shield automatically popping up in my tray again, but it seems I will, starting from next month.