Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Donations

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by cc333

  1. @Dylan Cruz Interesting. I wonder if someone could do something similar with v49 (the last Chrome to run unmodified on XP)? c
  2. I dunno. I'm kind of neutral on this particular topic of file hosting sites. However, I will agree that there's lots wrong with the modern internet, particularly the (in my opinion) overemphasis on security. I can understand the need for good security for important things like online shopping, banking, and other such things. But why does every single website need to be forced to use protocols and cipher suites that only a few of the newest browsers (namely Chrome and its derivatives) support?! It's not like they're ALL dealing in sensitive info! For example, I don't see the point in Wikipedia using strict TLS1.2 and 1.3 (at least for the public side); for users logging in to create/edit pages, I suppose it's fine. c
  3. I have installed the extended kernel on a Vista x64 VM last night, and I tried running the latest Firefox ESR (78.5), and I got the same error as @jns629 at first. Looking at @tamarindojuice's response, I decided to follow his advice to jns629 and patch firefox.exe. And it worked! However, I'm a little concerned that firefox.exe needs to be patched like this with every update, which can get annoying. So, with that in mind, is there a way I can automate the process somehow? I mean, it's of course not hard to do manually, but I'm nevertheless curious. c
  4. I haven't been super active here for awhile, but I have been following, and I must say that I'm impressed that Firefox 4x runs now! This would therefore allow roytam1's New Moon 27 (based on Palemoon 27, which I believe is in turn loosely based on Firefox 3x.x) and Nightly Firefox 45 with SSE1 support, both of which are actively maintained and much more up to date than any other browser KernelEx is capable of running. New Moon 28 (based on FF 52, I think) is probably a step too far, but it's a lot closer to being possible than it ever has before! c
  5. It may seem harsh, but upon reading the rules, it does actually seem to break rule #1.d: "warez" would seem to qualify as an illegally obtained, illegally hacked copy of Windows XP, and as such, would constitute usage in a manner that violates the license agreement. In other words, I understand where the mods/admins are coming from here. c
  6. I tried everything I can think of, short of reinstalling XP from scratch, and, as before, all I keep getting when trying to invoke WU is this: How do I fix it? EDIT: Things I've tried: Uninstalling IE8, and trying the original IE6. No change Force installing WUA 7.6.2600.256. Again, no change Installing and enabling the various POSReady 2009 TLS 1.2 patches and updating/important any relevant registry keys. Nothing Installing manually the Microsoft Update agent. Still nothing Updating root certificates. Fail! c
  7. That's too bad! My understanding is that as long as it isn't ECC-based, there exists the possibility of somehow implementing it. Right? This will ultimately have to be the proper solution, I suspect, because it doesn't involve (I assume) direct hacking of system files. c
  8. Indeed. I'm using IE8. I wonder if reinstalling the WU client SW and then reapplying the patch would fix it? I think this patch could stand some improvement (the biggest improvement would be to automate the install process, maybe by packaging it into a hotfix/update installer similar to those that MS uses), but it's off to an excellent start! c
  9. When I tried running WU today (after applying the patch), I got this screen: What happened, and how do I fix it?? c
  10. @win32 I agree, that this is probably going to be the safest (most legal) way to go about adding SHA2 support to XP. I look forward to seeing some progress on this! c
  11. @roytam1 Maybe now is a good time to start thinking seriously about branching off completely and establishing your own fork, independent of the Pale Moon developers, and thus largely immune from their meddling? Of course, such would possibly be nontrivial, and someone would still need to maintain it. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a developer! c
  12. I agree with @max-h, in that whether it is installed in a VM or on real hardware, the only "real" difference between the two is in the drivers (or Guest Additions on a VM). In other words, as far as XP is concerned, the hardware, real or otherwise, doesn't matter too much, so long as compatible drivers are available. c
  13. I got the yellow shield this morning! (9:37 AM Pacific) I feel like I should get Vista installed somewhere so I can update it. c
  14. When I tried to run WU on my Latitude D630 earlier tonight, I got a BSoD :/ Probably just a coincidence c
  15. Doesn't this violate forum rules? Probably a case of "get it while you can". I'm certain this won't be online for long. c
  16. It'd be lovely if someone could eventually accomplish the same thing for XP (at minimum at least XP 64-bit, since it is vaguely similar to Vista RTM/SP0, and thus probably somewhat more fixable using modified Vista methods than 32-bit XP, which is a rather different beast). Or even better, reverse engineer and implement a 100% compatible clone of the server-side WU/MU v6 engine so it can work indefinitely, which would be much better, because even if SHA-2 support were to be somehow retrofitted into XP (for instance), the relevant XP-related updates will eventually be removed anyway, therefore rendering such support mostly moot. Having a clone of the server-side back end running locally can host a user-defined archive of updates locally (or optionally, some online archive of select official and maybe even unofficial updates) that will always be preserved in some form. c
  17. I like that they're still explicitly supporting XP, and it isn't an afterthought. c
  18. I wonder if someone can hack the WU client and add some sort of SHA-2 support? This presumes that the updates are still extant on the WU servers, of course (they should be, as it stands to reason that the update catalog draws from the same source, which still includes updates dating back to Windows 2000 (I just checked, and they're still there as of now; how long it'll remain this way is anyone's guess)). Also, I know it's not 100% relevant here, but why does WU on Vista break when one updates it with the SHA-2 support from Windows Server 2008? I realize it increments the build number form 6002 to 6003, and that is somehow responsible for the breakage, but can't that be worked around to allow WU to work? Or am I misunderstanding something? c
  19. I have to agree with this. WAY too much emphasis on smartphones nowadays! This has been a growing trend since at least 2013, it's really gotten out of hand in the past three or so years (particularly the emphasis on social media such as Facebook and Twitter; the more people flock to those platforms, the more inclined I am to stay away from them). I'm beginning to feel like the world as we knew it before the mega-corporate info snatchers came along (Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, to name a few) is forever ruined. This, of course, probably isn't true. I'm just being cynical. Be that as it may, there are many modern commercials I don't like. Go back about 20 years though, and they start getting better (the farther back you go, the better they get in general, although every era has its fair share of flops). I remember not liking many of them much then, but after being bombarded by the junk that has come along in the 20 years since, I've warmed up to them considerably c
  20. 20.12.2016. OK, so that's not the problem. That's good! Perhaps I should re-download wsusscn2.cab? Maybe the certificate somehow got stripped out altogether? Anyway, I'll look into it tomorrow. It's late here in shake 'n bake California c
  21. Hmm, I thought I had? I guess it won't hurt to reinstall.... I'll give it a try and see what happens. EDIT: I reinstalled WU Agent 7.6.7600.256, and no change. WUMT is throwing the same error. EDIT #2: I'm not sure if this matters, but this is Win XP Pro x86 installed on a VMware Fusion VM on my macOS machine. EDIT #3: And it has the POS Ready 2009 patch applied. c
  22. Does anyone have a link to the latest working version of wsusscn2.cab? I have a copy I downloaded, but I don't know if it is valid, as I can't seem to get it to work on XP 32-bit (WUMT shows error 0x800B0100: No signature was present in the subject; don't know if this is related to the lack of sha1 certificate). I did get this same wsusscn2.cab to work on XP x64, for what it's worth. c

  • Create New...