FranceBB

Updated, no issues. I just saw the yellow shield popping up and I remembered it was patch tuesday. Everything fine. ^_^

When people write to the Avast forum about how to install the password extension in a fork browser, we generally tell them to open the URL in either Chrome (if it's Chromium based) or Firefox (if it's Firefox based) and then copy the URL and use it to install the extension in the fork browser. The Firefox version differs from the Chrome one and it's compatible with Firefox 52.9 ESR without any issues. Unfortunately, though, Chrome recently changed the way extensions are handled and the "new" extension is no longer compatible. They did it in order to improve security. If you try to load the installation page via Chrome 49 or Chromium 54, it won't simply load: it will be blank. If you try to look for the extension using the Chrome store/market using Chromium 54, the extension won't be offered/listed 'cause only the compatible ones are listed automatically by Google. Other extensions offered by Avast are offered to Chromium 54 and are still working, but keep in mind that you would be using the old version. Anyway, keep in mind that forks are not officially supported as well as old versions of the official browsers. Besides, I no longer have any affiliation with Avast 'cause the developers that I was friend with no longer work there and I won't even be a beta tester anymore since the beta programme for XP is almost over (this year is the final year). When I asked them about the minimum Chromium version required for Avast Password to work they didn't even bother to reply as I'm now literally just a normal user.

If you really wanna try it, just go to Ryanvm, download it and come back here, just like you would do for the SP4.

@dencorso... Yes, the official driver on official system works fine, but that's the whole point: the "generic" driver is based on the official Renesas driver, however it has been repacked to allow it to install on non-renesas systems (like the Intel ones). Sadly it didn't work and on the few non-renesas systems in which it somehow recognised the USB ports, it crashed and caused blue screens, therefore it should not be used. It was a bad attempt and an even worse idea from the beginning.

Thank you!!

Oops. mshehhix just replied and popped this topic back up, so I noticed that you were asking about it. Well, I remember that driver, it's the one for USB3.0, but unfortunately it doesn't work with every chips, but with a very limited number of chips (and it crashes often, it's not usable). My hardware ID is PCI\VEN_1912&DEV_0014. I didn't, I repacked the executable, but I didn't get lucky. After a year, I can say that it doesn't work for the majority of the systems and - as to my system - it kinda does, but if I copy files larger than 10 GB via USB3.0 it crashes (Blue Screen). When I connect a webcam or something else that it's not so resource intensive and doesn't buffer much, it works, BUT if I keep the webcam connected for... let's say more than 24 hours, it may crash out of the blue. There's definitely something wrong, but I didn't figure out what and I ended up dropping the "project" (if you can call it that). Besides, please note that it's based on proprietary drivers that shouldn't be modified or redistributed and of course I don't have access to the source code (only assembly via disassembler and hex via PE Explorer), so even attempting to understand what is wrong would be a nightmare (difficult, close to impossible). In other words: don't use it, unless you really want to experience crashes and blue screens. Last but not least, I'm actually using Linux (Fedora) to run a virtual machine with Windows XP to accomplish all my tasks on modern hardware. (it's actually a raw-disk access, so it's as close as possible to physical install). I also have other VMs, one of which has Windows Server 2019. I strongly suggest everyone who is going to get a new computer to use the same approach I used: Linux + Virtual Machine. Besides, support is gonna end soon and we are living on borrowed time.

I do remember that the issue you were talking about was with Malwarebytes not Avast. The person who had it reported it to Malwarebytes but they weren't able to reproduce the issue so he wrote about it here and he found out that it was due to oleaut32.dll.

Report it to Microsoft, guys. I already have months ago, but nothing happened, probably because I'm just one person. If several people start complaining about this to the support, maybe they'll fix it properly once and for all. Just pretend you have WES09 or POSReady 2009 and report it, they won't check.

lol. The first reply is a bot, but the followin ones are not. I mean, there's a real operator there. I contacted them other times and some of them were funny and very polite. Besides, a bot wouldn't ask me to fill a report (a feedback), saying how was my experience with the operator. They basically have a set of pre-configured answers (like the one you send with your mobile when someone tries to call you, but you are busy), but they can write things down themselves as well.

I just reported it to Microsoft, but this little fella was a bit confused. xD I hope they'll fix it.

@dencorso... it's the first time that I experience this in years... I guess I've been lucky so far. @heinoganda... oh, so it has been integrated in later OS. I followed the guide, but the link was dead. I found out that v1.6 is outdated and the latest version of UPHClean compatible with XP is 2.0.49.0. This because it has been updated via Windows Update in later OS, so they had to release a new .msi for XP as well. Anyway, I now have the service up and running. Hopefully it will prevent further errors. @bluebolt... I found the temporary profile and I deleted it, after that I renamed the ".bak" and I rebooted, but unfortunately Windows just recreated the temporary profile.

@Dave-H You can tell them if something it's wrong: as long as it's just a feedback, MS support doesn't check the licence. I do it all the time pretending to be on POSReady. As to this one, I'm gonna report it as well as it's happening on my machine as well. Anyway, I just disabled the Update Root Certificates from the Windows Components Wizard, as @mixit suggested. Hopefully, this is gonna solve the problem, as I already update my certificates once a month using the Cert_Updater_v1.3.exe

I run CHKDSK C: /F /R on a monthly basis, nothing pops up. Besides, the drive is kinda new as I clone my disk every 3 years and I replace my hard drives. Anyway, I'm gonna follow the link and copy everything into a new profile. Thanks.

Whenever I log in using my account, an error log appears "Windows cannot load the locally stored profile: Insufficient security rights or a corrupted local file. Windows has logged you in with a temporary profile any setting you make will not be saved." However, I manage to log in normally and I can do pretty much everything. I mean, I wouldn't even have noticed the "issue" if it wasn't for the error in the event log prompted by "usernv". Is this something I should be concerned about? Is it a false-positive? Is something corrupted?

Microsoft released a security advisory about a denial-of-service vulnerability that could render Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP (and embedded), Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 as well as the corresponding server editions completely unresponsive. Microsoft said that there is no mitigation and patches will not be offered to unsupported systems (Windows 95, 98, 2000, Vista, 8.0) and recommends disabling packet reassembly with the following command: Win95, 98, 2000: Netsh int ipv4 set global reassemblylimit=0 Win Vista and 8.0 users will also need: Netsh int ipv6 set global reassemblylimit=0 The bug is called FragmentSmack because it responds to IP fragmentation, a process that adjusts the packet size to fit the maximum transmission unit (MTU) at the receiving end. Basically the victim computer receives multiple IP packets of a smaller size that are expected to be reassembled into their original form at the destination. The effect is that the CPU of the machine reaches maximum utilisation level and renders the operating system unresponsive. As soon as the packets flow ceases, the CPU returns to normal usage and the system recovers. On Windows XP we are gonna be fine. (thank you POSReady updates).

Just to report that if you are using proxHTTPS and Whatsapp, you should add *web.whatsapp.com* to [SSL Pass-Thru] otherwise it's not gonna let you login for whatever reason. ^_^ Cheers.

Yes, the lovely yellow shield is back. There's no need to manually install updates anymore, Microsoft Update it's back and it works as it should.

Uh... that's weird. I personally don't watch Netflix (I work for a broadcast company and I'm actually fine with our contents), but I just looked at their site and it says that the minimum OS version is Windows XP, Google Chrome version 37 or Mozilla Firefox version 47. Make sure that the date on your computer is correct. If it is, I would suggest you to try with Chromium 54 http://browser.taokaizen.com/ or Firefox 52.9 ESR https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/52.9.0esr/win32/en-GB/ Although New Moon is supposed to be made from Firefox, it might not work as Firefox with some particular sites like Netflix.

Yes, that's what I thought. Got it, thanks. ^_^

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.