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. 


Vistapocalypse

Member
  • Content Count

    394
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Vistapocalypse last won the day on August 20

Vistapocalypse had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

180 Excellent

3 Followers

About Vistapocalypse

  • Rank
    this ship is sinking

Profile Information

  • OS
    Vista Home Premium x86
  • Country

Flags

  • Country Flag

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well my original post certainly did not lead to any discussion. I suppose MSFN has hardly any members running Server 2008 these days. There has been an unfortunate development courtesy of Microsoft: It seems that recent definitions - or more precisely, engines - for the antispyware version of Windows Defender are now incompatible with both Vista and Server 2008 SP2. (I assume that 2008 R2 is not affected.) Perhaps even worse, VistaLover informs me that Microsoft Security Essentials uses the same file mpengine.dll as Defender, so it must also be affected.
  2. Thanks for the reply @ClassicNick. Then in roytam1’s 12-21-2018 post it was “Update NSS to 3.41” that introduced support for RFC 8446. I somehow missed that development at the time.
  3. Self-reliance is considered a virtue in America, even if impatience is not. A quick search reveals that RFC 8446 was published in August 2018, so such TLS 1.3 support as FF52 has can only be prototypical (unless the mysterious 52.9.1 remedied that, but I don’t recall anyone claiming that it did).
  4. Thanks VistaLover! I didn’t even ask about TLS 1.3, but since you have brought it up: Isn’t something similar also true of Firefox ESR 52, which was also released in 2017? Or did a subsequent security update give FF 52.9 support for the final version of TLS 1.3 you mention? If not, do UXP browsers now support the final version? I understand that 360EE formerly had support for TLS 1.3 that was reportedly broken in recent versions, at least for XP. If a Vista user wanted support for the final TLS 1.3 version, what browser?
  5. Microsoft shut down Windows Update for XP, Vista and older, but it should still work for Windows 7 and newer provided that SHA-2 support has been installed: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4569557/windows-update-sha-1-based-endpoints-discontinued
  6. @SIW2 might be interested in this development, since he still thinks MSE 4.4 is fit for use on Vista. (I do not.) I actually have a TLS question about old Chromium browsers in general and Yandex 17 in particular: Is it the case that Yandex 17 only supports TLS 1.2 insofar as there is systemwide support for the protocol, i.e. insofar as Vista users have followed in your footsteps with respect to adding TLS 1.1 and 1.2 support for IE9? (I’ve tried googling.)
  7. In that case I upgraded my reaction to your post. I wonder if they have done the same thing to MSE (as they once did for XP). I don’t plan on using either of them myself, but I’m sure someone will want some instructions.
  8. Obviously you were able to install new definitions, but are you hinting that an older engine must be used now because M$ introduced one that is incompatible with Vista?
  9. OK, VirtualBox support for Vista x64 is definitely still ONG! Now I notice the old Windows Defender icon on your system tray, and it looks like definitions need to be updated. If you are running build 6003 with SHA-2 support, then it should be possible to manually install definitions by downloading file mpas-fe from Microsoft. Does that still work for you in September 2020?
  10. Thanks for posting so promptly! If you have tried the very latest 6.1.14 released September 4, then case closed: False alarm. Documentation regarding supported host operating systems was reportedly updated with 6.1.0, so any support for Vista x64 is unofficial now. The poster has a Pentium T3200 that may not support virtualization.
  11. Under Virtualization Software, Oracle VM VirtualBox is listed as ONG; but a post at another forum strongly suggests that is no longer true for Vista (and perhaps not even for Windows 7). VB only supports 64-bit hosts now, so my old Vista rig isn’t suitable for testing. If anyone can identify the last version for vanilla Vista, please post.
  12. Hello @VistaLover. It looks like you were able to manually install definition version 1.321.787.0 created on August 6, 2020. Are you still able to manually install mpas-fe files? I only ask because of an AskWoody thread Defender updates no longer install on Vista, much of which sounds like baloney to me. If I may be allowed one more silly question, does your Vista laptop have an NVIDIA card? That thread contains a peculiar hypothesis that updating to build 6003 causes a black screen of death on Vista systems with NVIDIA cards.
  13. There will be one less working option beginning in early 2021, but it’s so unpopular among the XP diehards here, this news might be cheered instead of jeered: Norton Protection End-of-Support Announcement for Windows XP and Windows Vista
  14. I think that falls under “NM27 is too old.”
×
×
  • Create New...