Vistapocalypse

You probably already have it then. (I was actually replying to SIW2.)

Hmm, before installing KB4474419 you are supposed to install the April 2019 servicing stack update KB4493730 (at least according to Microsoft), and the September 2019 SSU might not be a bad idea either. I have no idea what effect this might have regarding MSE definition updates however.

Yes, it does sound like SIW2 was talking about updating definitions from within the UI - something that wasn’t possible in July 2019 (at least not without SHA-2 support, which I did not have then). If manual installation is still possible, it’s worth mentioning that “do-it-yourself” methods of automation were discussed earlier in this thread. However, none of this changes my mind about the client’s lack of effectiveness.

Yeah, 80244019 is the same error code as updates for Vista itself (e.g. here). Oh well, at least M$ has spared me from arguing that AMTSO test results were shockingly bad (which often fell on deaf ears). Almost everyone understands the importance of definition updates, so this should settle the question: barring some sort of miracle, MSE is dead on Vista. Edit: But I may have spoken too soon.

That’s interesting. Assuming there is no issue with the latest MSE version (“only” 4 years old) on Windows 7 (and a hasty search found no reports), then M$ is of course the logical suspect. I’m sure you have SHA-2 support installed, so that’s not the issue. I wonder if Server 2008 SP2 (which MSE did not officially support) is also affected. If someone had asked me in 2016 what antivirus to use for Vista, I would’ve recommended MSE without hesitation. (My first post as an MSFN member was on page 1 of this very thread.) It’s sad that subsequent developments forced me to become an MSE naysayer.

Now that MSE 4.4 is seven years old, an opposing viewpoint on the importance of green colors comes along.

Maybe resurrect Which Antiviruses are Known for a Fact to be Working on XP SP3 as of 2019?

My first thought is that you should use an antivirus for XP that can still receive definition updates. My second thought is that you should be posting in the Windows XP forum instead of the Windows Vista forum.

The thread Microsoft security essentials and Windows XP was closed in June 2019, and certainly not due to lack of trying. I also doubt the wisdom of relying on the 2013 client version to protect Vista. Can definitions be updated? Yes. Does that mean you now have effective real-time protection? My conclusion was No. To be sure, I did manage to capture one screenshot of real-time protection functioning properly (see bottom of my July 17, 2019 post on page 3 of this thread and note system tray notification at lower right) - but unfortunately that was often impossible to reproduce, so I adopted Avast 18.8 instead.

Hmm, @greenhillmaniac might need to take another look at his reg file then, at least the x64 version. (VistaLover and I use Vista x86 anyway.) Glad you have it working now!

Your IE9 version number depends on which cumulative security update for IE9 is installed. The last cumulative security update with a dual signature was KB4507434. (VistaLover wasn’t using that one in July 2017 because it wasn’t released until July 2019.) For those who have installed SHA-2 support, the highest possible version of IE9 remains a cutting-edge question. Your latest and longest post seems to be about the reg files that were created by greenhillmaniac, who has never posted in this thread. It is possible to scrutinize the changes in a reg file without running it. I have looked at the reg files (in fact once offered some input regarding the x64 version), and recall some arguably superfluous changes that I interpreted as being for the sake of security (e.g. having SSL enabled has been unwise for years). If anyone running Vista x64 would like to manually edit their registry pursuant to TLS 1.1 and 1.2, see this post.

Are you certain? Windows Defender could be updated until quite recently, and OP likely has an antivirus anyway.

If you have already installed a number of Server 2008 updates, then you probably have KB4056564, which superseded KB4019276 as first noted in a June 22, 2018 post above. Otherwise, you might have downloaded a patch with incorrect bitness or for Itanium-based systems.

Someone trying to activate Windows Vista also reported 0x80072F8F at another forum today.

Looks like MajorGeeks and Softpedia are the top search results. Edit: But see this post for the recommended version.

What build number are you testing with? The only prerequisite for SP2 was SP1, so “updates from 2007” are of no value.

For those who might want to read more, here’s a Microsoft support article where the download link can be found: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/926464/a-new-version-of-the-windows-update-offline-scan-file-wsusscn2-cab-is Vista is not specifically mentioned, but the page was updated May 25, 2017.

Is that link only for XP or does the same version work on Vista?

So SIW2, you will only help new member TheRobster5555 if he creates an account at Blithering Blogspot where you are considered a guru? The world no longer needs multiple Windows Vista forums, and most of the advanced users are here at MSFN, so please decide where your loyalties lie. Meanwhile, there was an interesting post at MSFN last night: https://msfn.org/board/topic/178377-on-decommissioning-of-update-servers-for-2000-xp-and-vista-as-of-july-2019/?do=findComment&comment=1185365

This thread is unfortunately too long to read now, but there was eye-opening information as early as page 1. Among other things, VistaLover persuaded me to try Yandex 17 by elucidating the legacy browser situation whenever newest Polymer v2 becomes oldest (more serious than March 2020).

Hmm, it seems unlikely that M$ will remove all the old updates for Server 2008 SP2 (or Windows 7 for that matter) while it is under ESU. Patching Vista SP2 with Server 2008 updates all the way back might be a possibility (and brings this thread back toward topic). I would imagine that Vista had more patches than 2008 though, since it had more features. But what if M$ replaces old patches with sha2 versions? In that case, the April 2019 SSU (which was dual-signed) becomes the single most important patch to stockpile. But what if M$ decides to block installation on Vista while they’re at it? We need a repository!

[Imagine a quote of my friend VistaLover’s entire post ] It might be wise for greenhillmaniac to consult with MSFN administrators before proceeding. (A couple of posts pertaining to XP seem to have vanished from the above-mentioned thread.) As mentioned, download links could be helpful as long as content remains in the catalog - but I’m afraid another link might be construed as saying that content will be removed from the catalog soon... https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/sha-1-windows-content-to-be-retired-august-3-2020/ba-p/1544373

I suspect that there might be more interest very soon. See my post here, and BTW posting there might be better than of flurry of OT posts in this Server 2008 thread such as we saw last summer. Edit: See new Windows Vista Update Repository thread!

Obviously. Firefox 52-based browsers are more popular among devotees of XP and Vista, but that is also old code and no less threatened by YouTube’s latest Polymer v2.

July 2019 was obviously a false alarm, but Doomsday will come like a thief in the night: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4569557/windows-update-sha-1-based-endpoints-discontinued