Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

About mixit

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x86
  • Country
  1. Yes, since MSFN switched to HTTPS fairly recently The workaround would seem to be not to use IE (or any other XP cert management and TLS implementation dependent browser) or OE in connection with this site. Or maybe to use the proxy @heinoganda often mentions around here.
  2. @glnz @Dave-H If you look at the IP address, msfn.org and trisomija21.org are on the same server, and since XP doesn't support SNI in TLS handshakes, you're not sent the correct msfn.org certificate when connecting, but the default trisomija21.org one. Presumably the same thing happening with Outlook Express. EDIT: It's been such a long time since I stopped using OE that I can't recall if it has an option to disable remote images by default or not. If it does, I'd recommend disabling them for better security and tracking protection, regardless of this particular certificate issue that has cropped up now that MSFN has switched to HTTPS.
  3. Of course, if you actually use it and are aware of the risks. There are plenty of people, though, who have it installed simply because they did a full installation, have never used it and probably don't even know about the functionality. I think it makes sense for them to remove it.
  4. @glnz Also, Equation Editor deemed unfixable and purged by Microsoft, remove it from Office 2000/XP/2003/etc. ASAP.
  5. Thanks. I assumed it would work with the old oleaut32.dll, maybe I'll do the partial thing later if I get tired of waiting on MS to fix the problem. The way this one is affecting various software, it seems rather likely that "real" POSReady systems could get hindered by it (compared to the types of NTFS scenarios people have been seeing with the other patch), so I think maybe there's more hope for a fairly quick v2.
  6. No New Threads Can Be Created. Help!!!

    Seems to be a general problem after the recent downtime: Also, since then I've been constantly getting the "please disable ad blockers" message (and don't see any ads), even though I'm not blocking anything on MSFN (tested with different browsers).
  7. Just for reference, in my case KB4074852 prevented the GUI portion of Comodo Firewall from loading with message COMODO Security Agent could not be started. Would you like to run the diagnostics tool to fix this error? The diagnostics didn't detect anything; had to uninstall KB4074852 to get it working again. The machine in question has a fairly old version of Comodo (7.0.317799.4142), I don't feel like upgrading it right now just to test if newer versions work or not.
  8. In theory, yes - although you could potentially end up missing fixes for permissions not related to the file system (the registry, services, whatever else - can't say I'm an expert). @Destro will tell you in no uncertain terms that you're not affected if you have an FSB processor (those ex-KGB guys know how to protect their stuff; j/k, it means "front-side bus") - and indeed, Intel hasn't confirmed these CPUs are affected; then again, some proof-of-concept tests floating around appear to work on C2D (assuming the tests are implemented correctly). So, confusion continues... That microcode list, though, doesn't mean C2D is getting any updates at this point - it's cumulative and includes historical updates as well.
  9. Cryptojacking block for Windows XP

    Well, It's certainly possible that the big guns don't always cover everything, I just figure they'd generally get more input because of how many users they have. I think you'd get the same result if you added the Mining Blocker rules to ABP. It's slow enough as is even without using another blocker on top of it (had to move to uBO myself for better speed, even though I prefer ABP's interface).
  10. Cryptojacking block for Windows XP

    @wyxchari You are correct, domains and especially script file names can always be changed. And since Mining Blocker simply blocks the following sites: '*://coinhive.com/lib*','*://coin-hive.com/lib*','*://cnhv.co/lib*','*://coinhive.com/captcha*','*://coin-hive.com/captcha*','*://cnhv.co/captcha*','*://*/miner.pr0gramm.com/*','*://miner.pr0gramm.com/*','*://*/coin-have.com/*','*://coin-have.com/*','*://*/hashforcash.us/*','*://hashforcash.us/*','*://*/hashforcash.com/*','*://hashforcash.com/*','*://*/coinerra.com/*','*://coinerra.com/*','*://*/pr0gramm.com/*','*://pr0gramm.com/*','*://minecrunch.co/web/*','*://mine-crunch.co/web/*','*://jsecoin.com/server*','*://*.jsecoin.com/server*','*://*.*','*://load.jsecoin.com/*','*://*.load.jsecoin.com/*','*://server.jsecoin.com/*','*://*.server.jsecoin.com/*','*://static.reasedoper.pw/*','*://mataharirama.xyz/*','*://listat.biz/*','*://crypto-loot.com/lib*','*://cryptoloot.com/lib*','*://gus.host/*','*://*/gus.host/*','*://xbasfbno.info/*','*://*/xbasfbno.info/*','*://azvjudwr.info/*','*://*/azvjudwr.info/*','*://jyhfuqoh.info/*','*://*/jyhfuqoh.info/*','*://jroqvbvw.info/*','*://*/jroqvbvw.info/*','*://projectpoi.com/*','*://*/projectpoi.com/*','*://kdowqlpt.info/*','*://*/kdowqlpt.info/*','*://ppoi.org/*','*://*/ppoi.org/*','*://inwemo.com/*','*://*/inwemo.com/*','*://lmodr.biz/*','*://mine-my-traffic.com/*','*://minemytraffic.com/*','*://coinblind.com/lib/*','*://coinnebula.com/lib/*','*://coinlab.biz/*','*://deepc.cc/*','*://*/coinlab.biz/*','*://gridcash.net/*','*://*/gridcash.net/*','*://socketminer.com/*','*://*/socketminer.com/*','*://ad-miner.com/*','*://*/ad-miner.com/*','*://cloudcoins.co/*','*://*/cloudcoins.co/*','*://webmine.cz/*','*://*/webmine.cz/*','*://hashunited.com/*','*://*/hashunited.com/*','*://mineralt.io/*','*://*/mineralt.io/*','*://authedmine.com/*','*://*/authedmine.com/*','*://easyhash.io/*','*://*/easyhash.io/*','*://webminepool.com/*','*://*/webminepool.com/*','*://monerise.com/*','*://*/monerise.com/*','*://coinpirate.cf/*','*://*/coinpirate.cf/*','*://crypto-webminer.com/*','*://*/crypto-webminer.com/*','*://webmine.pro/*','*://*/webmine.pro/*','*://*/monad.network/*','*://monerominer.rocks/scripts/*','*://cdn.cloudcoins.co/javascript/*','*://minero.pw/miner.min.js*' and any script URLs containing any of the following strings: 'CoinHive','Coin-Hive','jsecoin','mataharirama','minecrunch','coin-have','hashforcash','coinerra','reasedoper','minemytraffic','lmodr','cryptoloot','crypto-loot','listat','monero.worker','scrypt.worker','scrypt.asm','neoscrypt.asm','gus.host','xbasfbno','azvjudwr','jyhfuqoh','miner.pr0gramm','jroqvbvw','projectpoi','kdowqlpt','ppoi','minemytraffic','inwemo','minero','coinblind','coinnebula','coinlab','cloudcoins','deepc','monerominer','gridcash','monad','ad-miner','socketminer','cloudcoins','webmine','mineralt','authedmine','hashunited','webminepool','monerise','coinpirate','crypto-webminer','c-hive','cryptonight' and any scripts containing: 'miner','CoinHive','Coin-Hive','Coin-Have','hashforcash','coinerra','jsecoin','mataharirama','minecrunch','reasedoper','minemytraffic','cryptoloot','crypto-loot','inwemo','minero','CoinBlind','coinnebula','minemytraffic','cryptonight','coinlab','cloudcoins','monerominer','deepMiner','gridcash','monad','ad-miner','socketminer','cloudcoins','webmine','mineralt','authedmine','webminepool','monerise','coinpirate','crypto-webminer','c-hive','CRLT.Anonymous','hashunited' It would seem pretty easy to bypass it by renaming (also easy to get something useful blocked because of false positives). Since Mining Blocker has only 7,898 installs versus 13,424,117 for Adblock Plus and 5,111,703 for uBlock Origin, I'd rather rely on blocker extensions with massive user base, because their blocklists are likely to be up to date more quickly. Also, with Mining Blocker you currently have to update the extension itself just to get an updated blocklist. The only "feature" Mining Blocker has is that upon installation it attempts to stop any mining scripts already running - useful if for some reason you don't like to restart the browser. (I looked at Mining Blocker because I was curious what interesting tricks they might use to detect mining scripts, not to be contrary with you. Based on these results, I'm afraid most of the "specialized" anti-mining extensions would similarly turn out to be not terribly useful subsets of full-blown adblocker functionality.)
  11. Cryptojacking block for Windows XP

    My observations : Your browser version doesn't really matter, all you need to get "You're protected" is somehow blocking coinhive.com and coin-hive.com. This can be done in any browser by running a regular adblocker like uBlock Origin, etc., I don't see much need for specialized addons. While raising awareness is commendable in itself, the cryptojackingtest.com site seems to be more about advertising Opera (specifically its built-in adblocker) than serious testing for cryptojacking protection. In my opinion, actually mining cryptocurrency on the site (instead of just checking if it could be done) is a pretty questionable move, even if they claim to donate the proceeds. Edit: If Opera were the ones behind this site, I don't see why they'd register this domain anonymously - this is starting to look like a clever ruse to use people to mine a bit under the guise of an awareness campaign. Apparently the site is referenced in Opera's official blog so it should be legit. It's still weird that they'd use a domain privacy service instead of registering the domain with their official contact information.
  12. Who has the latest Firefox ESR Installed?

    @ThomasW Without knowing the exact details of what has been changed in the browser, it's hard to say with 100% certainty that these fixes won't slow anything down. However, it seems very unlikely based on the overview given by Mozilla. Don't let the common word "time" confuse you, reducing the precision of time sources should in no way affect site loading times; and it's hard to imagine any legitimate scripts used by social media sites needing microsecond precision for anything, so they should be unaffected as well. As @Bersaglio said, don't worry about it (least of all on XP, which hasn't received slowdown-causing OS-level mitigations). Besides, ESR means no feature changes, so even in the very unlikely case of there being slowdowns, you can always go back to the previous point release without the risk of messing up your profile.
  13. (Apologies for the slew of quotes, I wanted to get the full context.) It sure would be nice to have a list like that for Meltdown/Spectre, but unfortunately the fact that a CPU is on this list doesn't mean that it's vulnerable to them, just that it has had a microcode update released for it. If you scroll down the downloadcenter.intel.com page and look at Other Versions on the left-hand side, you'll see that there have been many previous microcode releases dating from years before anyone knew about these vulnerabilities, It's a cumulative release and the list you posted simply reflects that, most of the updates included in it are from years ago. As you correctly stated in the end, only the more recent CPUs will be patched for these particular vulnerabilities. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not getting on your case or anything. I myself also misunderstood at first what the list actually meant, because I was first directed to it from a site that flat out claimed this was a list specifically for Meltdown/Spectre...
  14. They are not Meltdown+Spectre patches - as things stand right now, those won't be coming to XP-based OSes at all. KB4056615 has seen some pretty serious issues that have been reported here (they don't happen to all installations - I personally have encountered no problems so far) , I haven't noticed any reports about problems with KB4056941 specifically. EDIT: Unrelated, but important for Office 2000/XP/2003 users:
  15. With the latest patches out this Tuesday, Microsoft has completely removed Equation Editor from all still supported Office versions, so it's a very good idea to also remove it from older Office versions ASAP. See the updated opening post for details.