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

68 Excellent

About mixit

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x86
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You shouldn't need to restart the stream, just hitting the left arrow key and then the right arrow key should do it - this jumps you 5 seconds back and then 5 seconds forward to where you were before (in case some other page element has focus, you may need to click on the video first). It's still an annoyance, but much less disruptive this way. I pretty much do it on autopilot at this point, after years of practice courtesy of Mozilla. This works at most other video sites as well. since most players bind these keys similarly.
  2. @Dave-H I'm still getting the 2017 version here. MS caches seem to be a crapshoot in terms of getting the latest certificate updates (for example I'm also still not getting the latest update @heinoganda notified us about). Not the first time this has happened, either. I wouldn't even be surprised if the version you downloaded manually just now was different than the one WU gets when it tries. I don't know about "exactly", but functionally, yes, for our purposes they should be the same. The automatic updater wouldn't know about your manual updates as the mechanism it uses is different (.sst vs .stl), and thus also its versioning. I don't think there's any checking being done against individual certificates being present or not.
  3. I guess I'm not sure why you think you still need this active if you're doing your updates separately anyway? You're already "working around" this functionality as is. I think it was you who pointed out earlier in the thread that the current authroot.stl dates from 2017/9/22. Viewing its signature shows that the Microsoft Certificate Trust List Publisher certificate it's signed by was valid from 2017/1/25 to 2018/4/13. I'd venture a guess that this is when your errors started (can't tell by this thread as MSFN forum issues seem to have wiped out some of the posts). Until Microsoft updates this list, I believe you're always going to have the problem with the Event 11 certificate validity errors against your system clock:
  4. @Dave-H Since you seem to be getting Event 11 errors for crypt32, maybe you have the automatic Update Root Certificates component still active in your XP installation? It would seem quite odd for you to be getting lots of errors about not being able to extract certificates from a WU cab unless something was trying to update them. Given that you're updating manually (or via @heinoganda 's tool) anyway, you should probably turn it off even if that won't resolve the errors issue. In Control Panel, run Add or Remove Programs. Click Add/Remove Windows Components in the left-hand column. Scroll all the way down to Update Root Certificates, clear the check box, click Next, and then complete the Windows Components Wizard. Pardon me if this is old news to you. I tried checking back in this thread to see if this component was mentioned in connection with your problem and didn't find anything.
  5. 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.
  6. mixit

    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).
  7. mixit

    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.)
  8. mixit

    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.
  9. mixit

    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.
  10. (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...
  11. 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:
  12. 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.
  13. "An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in the way that the Windows Kernel API enforces permissions." (marked as Important, but Exploitation Less Likely). Doesn't sound very Meltdownish to me. For whatever reason, they decided to release a whole bunch of Windows OS patches early. Take a look at the Server 2008 updates for instance, clearly things like Microsoft Color Management information disclosure vulnerability aren't related to Meltdown.
  14. Time to stop worrying and love the bomb...? From Microsoft's official guidance Protect your Windows devices against Spectre and Meltdown (expand "My operating system (OS) is not listed. When can I expect a fix to be released?") (emphases in the quote added by me): I think this should also settle the confusion some people seem to have over whether KB4056615 was supposed to be a Meltdown fix: it wasn't.
  15. I know what you mean, but until Intel can be bothered to make a definitive itemized list of all processors these problems apply to, 99.9% of the people are going to think Core 2 Duos are included in this, because people aren't going know that "2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors" are supposed to be the same i3/5/7 processors that were already mentioned before (that is, unless Intel has now started reinterpreting the meanings of their own jargon). They just see the word "Core" and assume that they're probably affected, especially with all the vague claims being circulated in the media about all x64 processors being affected, etc.