Jump to content

Vistapocalypse

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,082

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Vistapocalypse

  1. Vistapocalypse
    You probably need to manually install SP1 first. I provided a Catalog link for SP1 in my first reply above. After you install SP1, please try Windows Update to see if it works before installing the SHA-2 updates.
  2. Vistapocalypse
    Only if you can reproduce the issue using Interlink on your main Windows 7 system. They will blow a fuse if they realize you are using roytam1’s version on XP or Vista!
  3. Vistapocalypse
    @Winillya2k any progress with updates? If I was wrong to expect R2 to work like Windows 7, or if you already have R2 SP1 updated to July 2019 (the last of the dual-signed updates), then you may need to manually install updates that add support for SHA-2. In addition to the 2019 link provided above, this is discussed in Windows Update SHA-1 based endpoints discontinued for older Windows devices under How to update Windows devices to SHA-2. Of course updating beyond January 2020 should not be possible without a paid ESU license.
  4. Vistapocalypse
    “SpeedTest App” is listed as ONG in the Last versions of software for (vanilla) Windows Vista thread under System Management, Cleanup, and Analysis.
  5. Vistapocalypse
    Hello. I haven’t heard of a repository for Server 2008 R2 updates, but there shouldn’t be any real need for one: It should be possible to get Windows Update to work on that platform. What specific error code is it giving you? Did your installation media include Service Pack 1? SP1 seems to be all that’s needed to get Windows Update working on Windows 7 these days despite Microsoft’s 2019 SHA-2 Code Signing Support requirement for Windows and WSUS, and I would be surprised if the situation is different for 2008 R2, which is also Windows 6.1.
  6. Vistapocalypse
    Welcome to MSFN. My understanding is that there is no better driver for your purposes than 372.70, which did not officially support Vista and has significant issues. Obvious solutions would be a newer version of Windows or an older GPU. There have been recent efforts by @win32 to modify the driver as discussed beginning here, but testing by @burd in subsequent posts has not been very encouraging thus far.
  7. Vistapocalypse
    Would you please test Chrome 50 at SSL Labs client test and post again about its protocol support? If it only supports TLS 1.0, then Chrome 50 depends on system resources just like Chrome 49.
  8. Vistapocalypse
    The fact that Chrome 50 will run on Vista has been known for years, as posted in Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 under Web Browsers , which even has links to FilePuma. I don’t think it will run on XP though.
  9. Vistapocalypse
    Speaking of Chinese products, Qihoo 360 and Tencent PC Manager are also missing (which is fine with me).
  10. Vistapocalypse
    @VistaLover latest engine version is now 1.1.17500.4
  11. Vistapocalypse
    Then it would appear that M$ has not actually discontinued SHA-1 based endpoints, but is merely discriminating against Vista/XP/2000.
  12. Vistapocalypse
    Or maybe someone simply goofed?
  13. Vistapocalypse
    It might be a good idea to test again on a new installation of Windows 7, now that Windows Update has been shut down for XP/Vista again.
  14. Vistapocalypse
    @VistaLover the engine file mentioned here might be worth a look: https://docs.microsoft.com/answers/answers/96261/view.html
  15. Vistapocalypse
    System Center Endpoint Protection (SCEP) is also affected on Server 2008 SP2 (but not R2), and there is some hope that M$ will issue an official fix: https://docs.microsoft.com/answers/questions/81262/scep-for-windows-server-2008-standard-no-longer-up.html Edit: Microsoft has indeed fixed the problem: The current engine version 1.1.17500.4 has restored compatibility with Windows 6.0.
  16. Vistapocalypse
    Malwarebytes consumer products do not officially support any server version of Windows. Like many software vendors, MB would rather sell business products for servers, although some home users are certainly running servers. When MBAM 3.2 was released in September 2017, there was an artificial block to prevent installation on servers, which MB later removed following outcry from home users. In any case, the last version to support Windows Vista was MBAM 3.5.1, and that should also apply to Server 2008 SP2 (essentially a server version of Vista). Furthermore, the ransomware protection introduced with MBAM 3.0 is unavailable. Personally, I never used MBAM Premium on Vista. (I always had a better real-time AV installed.) For on-demand scanning, I prefer MBAM Free 2.2.1, which should function on 2008 SP2 AFAIK.
  17. Vistapocalypse
    Among recently active members, I only know of @SIW2 and @Dylan Cruz who might be interested in that.
  18. Vistapocalypse
    For clarity, are you saying that you have installed Windows 7 within the last month, and Windows Update was able to patch it to January 2020 standards without manually installing any update pertaining to SHA-2? Edit: And btw welcome to MSFN!
  19. Vistapocalypse
    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. Edit: See VistaLover’s recent post for more details about this development.
  20. Vistapocalypse
    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.
  21. Vistapocalypse
    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).
  22. Vistapocalypse
    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?
  23. Vistapocalypse
    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
  24. Vistapocalypse
    @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.)
  25. Vistapocalypse
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...