XPHomeSP3

I concur. I sincerely appreciate the efforts anyone puts into keeping Windows XP updated and as safe as it can possibly be for those of us who continue to use it on a regular basis. It’s easy for anyone to get behind a keyboard and hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and criticize others but it is the hard work and dedication of individuals like you that is truly what matters.

Forgive my ignorance, but does all this mean if you are running Windows XP and you simply want to update your Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates list all you have to do is run @heinoganda‘s Cert_Updater.exe after unzipping it from the applicable .rar file?

OK, here's a crazy thought... I'm considering turning this project into a Win 8.1/Vista dual boot scenario. 1. Are there any pitfalls to avoid? 2. Is there a specific order in which the OS's should be installed? As always, thanks for any and all expertise, suggestions and advice you may have.

Well done, @win32 ! Can you imagine if Microsoft was this responsive to their users’ requests?

I'm sure you saw this already but, if you're so inclined, it looks like you're going to have to work your magic again, @win32 : DST changes in Windows for Morocco: May 2020 In a nutshell: On the occasion of the holy month of Ramadan, the Kingdom of Morocco will observe the following daylight saving time (DST) changes: Morocco will return to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on Sunday, April 19, 2020, at 03:00. After the month of Ramadan, clocks will be set forward one hour (to GMT+1) on Sunday, May 31, 2020, at 02:00. Microsoft made sure they didn't mention this update applies to Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 this time.

Thank you so much for your timely, informative and concise reply @TigTex as this is exactly the type of information I was looking for. I hope to install the 64 bit version of Vista so I will make sure I have at least 4 GB of RAM available.

I have decided to install Vista (which I have never previously used as an OS) from scratch on an older system I have for the benefit of enhancing my computer knowledge. All necessary prerequisites for a (hopefully) successful install of Vista have been met and I am seeking advice on the following: 1. Should I install the 32 or 64 bit variety? 2. After successfully installing the base files, do I have to install SP1 and then SP2 or can I just install SP2 on its own? 3. Is there a particular order for installing all the post SP2 updates up until Vista's April 11, 2017 EOS date? 4. I plan on installing all the Post-EOS Vista-applicable Server 2008 R2 updates discussed in the Server 2008 Updates on Windows Vista thread. Should these be installed in chronological order? Thank you in advance for any and all expertise, suggestions and advice you are able to provide.

I'm not sure how many times I've read the 0patch blog post I referenced previously, but after re-reading it again I apparently glazed over this line: "Renaming ATMFD.DLL or disabling ATMFD via registry makes the vulnerability unreachable even for a local attacker who has ability to execute low-privileged arbitrary code on the computer." Personally, I'm not a fan of modifying the registry because I don't want to mistakenly cause serious damage. For me, renaming the ATMFD.DLL file seemed like a less risky choice to do and then undo if necessary.

There's two reasons why: 1. I read on the 0patch.com blog entry for March 26, 2020, entitled "Micropatching Unknown 0days in Windows Type 1 Font Parsing", that renaming the ATMFD.DLL file reliably blocks all remote and local attacks using these vulnerabilities. The article specifically says, "This is the most effective mitigation, because it eliminates the vulnerable code." As I understand it, your suggestions, while certainly effective, only block remote attacks. Correct? 2. I didn't realize that Windows XP didn't behave the same way as Windows 7 and Windows 10 does when renaming a protected file such as ATMFD.DLL. In hindsight, I would not have done so if I had known this. Knock on wood, I'm not experiencing any problems so far as a result of my actions, but I still don't have the answer to my questions: 1. Am I still unprotected despite using the command prompt commands listed above to rename ATMFD.DLL in Windows XP? 2. How can I restore the ATMFD.DLL file to v.5.1.2.253 (the version it was before I renamed it and it subsequently auto-repaired)? Thank you. P.S. One more thing, what does "the specific 3D" mean?

I'm really sorry to keep asking about this, but I just do not understand what is happening as a result of renaming the ATMFD.DLL file though the command prompt commands given above. Specifically, if the ATMFD.DLL file is renamed to X-ATMFD.DLL but then gets auto restored because it is a protected Windows file, doesn't this mean you are still not protected from the CVE-2020-0938 and CVE-2020-1020 vulnerabilities since ATMFD.DLL is still present afterwards? Forgive my ignorance, but I would really like to understand this. Thank you.

Why the Casablancan Supermarket chain, of course. Who else could it possibly be? And you're most welcome. My pleasure.

Thanks for your offer @GH0st. It may help some who don't have it installed already, but KB4501226 (the DST rollup for changes in Windows for Morocco and the Palestinian Authority) was released prior to KB4507704 (which was a correction update DST rollup for changes in Windows for Brazil and Morocco). KB4501226 was released for POSReady 2009 by mistake by Microsoft on May 22, 2019 as POSReady 2009 had reached its EOS date on April 9, 2019. It was briefly available in the update catalog before Microsoft realized what they had done and pulled it. As @ED_Sln pointed out in a post above, many people (including yourself, obviously) were lucky enough to download it before Microsoft realized what they had done.

Well, I finally have some definitive news to share concerning KB4507704; unfortunately, it's not the news I was hoping for. After much digging, I have come to learn from a credible source that Microsoft did indeed produce KB4507704 for Windows XP Embedded POSReady 2009. The notification stating it is available for POSReady 2009 through the methods listed in it's support article is, obviously, inaccurate because Microsoft never followed through with their official formal process of releasing KB4507704 for POSReady 2009 through Windows Update, WSUS or the update catalog. As it stands now, because POSReady 2009 has reached EOS, the only way to gain access to it is to open a paid support ticket with Microsoft in order to get it released, despite them being the ones who published the erroneous information in the first place. Unbelievable. So there you have it. All the speculation and theories put forth here have proven to be correct. Thank you and good work everyone! Not to worry though, if you're a Microsoft Premier Support subscriber/member/partner, you undoubtedly already have KB4507704 (along with all the other security and non-security updates released over the past year) installed on your Windows XP/POSReady 2009 systems. For us franchisees of the Casablancan Supermarket chain, thankfully we have been graciously provided with a custom registry fix by @win32 to help us not only accomplish the same thing as KB4507704 but with the added benefit that it can also be applied to all NT 5.x OSes. Finally, I would just like to close by saying that Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to have information publicly available on their own website(s) that give the impression this update is easily obtained from methods we've been accustomed to utilizing over the years. If they aren't going to ultimately release KB4507704 for POSReady 2009 to the update catalog, then at the very least they should correct the information on their support page(s) to reflect this. Tsk. Tsk.

Much appreciated @ED_Sln! Too bad they didn't post KB4507704 by mistake or it had a direct link download as well given the amount of documentation they have for it that gives the impression it's currently available.

I too am always looking and last night I encountered something while searching the Microsoft update catalog which has left me wondering if I encountered a rip in the space-time continuum. I typed in KB4501226 in the search box on the right and was rather surprised to find the following appear on my screen: You can clearly see from the above there are 14 items listed and the 8th item down says: 2019-06 Update for POSReady 2009 for x86-based Systems Windows XP Embedded Update Rollups 6/9/2019 0 KB Uuuuuh, what??? So, I clicked on the Download link and got an error message saying the update requested could not be found: I then closed the error message and clicked on the Products tab to re-sort the files and the number of entries went from 14 to 13 because the Windows XP Embedded listing disappeared. All the entries were then shown with their corresponding files sizes too: Can anyone else replicate this strange phenomenon? I also tried to search for KB4507704 to see if the same thing would happen but only the regular 13 listings were listed.

Oh. Oh. When I originally tried to re-name the atmfd.dll file by right clicking on it and "changing it", when atmfd,dll auto-restored, it restored with an older version of the file: renamed atmfd.dll file - v5.1.2.253 (291 kb) auto-restored atmfd.dll file - v5.1.2.226 (279 kb) When I then try to use the commands you have listed in the above post, I keep getting "A duplicate file name exists, or the file cannot be found" message. How do I fix this and have the atmfd.dll - v5.1.2.253 (291 kb) file restored to system32 instead of the older atmfd.dll - v5.1.2.226 (279 kb) file? I assume the atmfd.dll file must have had it's version number changed due to a Windows update at some point, yes? Your expert guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Awesome! Please keep us posted and hopefully the wind will die down soon.

Yes, this is what I'm hoping for but I haven't installed it on my Casablacan Supermarket cash register yet. Please let us know your results when you have a chance.

Sorry. Here's the correct link: https://0patch.com/user_manual.htm I corrected the link in my original post too.

I believe you may have misunderstood the intent of my post or perhaps I didn't convey myself as clearly as I intended. I just meant you are the only one who is lucky enough to be still offered POSReady 2009 updates, so maybe you'll also have the good fortune of being offered KB4507704 at some point too. I can assure you my intent was in no way meant to humiliate you in any way, shape or form and if you took it that way, I sincerely apologize. We're all here to learn from and help each other as best we can and I know I'm certainly grateful for everything I've been able to benefit from so far.

I agree. It also says on 0patch's pricing page you can contact them for a free trial so that's another option to check for any additional possible instability issues before you decide to move to the Pro version. I don't know if you've had a chance to peruse the 0patch user manual but I would recommend this as well. You will find everything you need to know about its intricacies in there.

Do I seem to recall reading in one of your previous posts that you would be willing to pay $100.00/year for continuing security updates for XP if Microsoft ever offered it? If so, 0patch is a much better deal if you look at it this way. However, as I mentioned previously, 0patch told me, "We have so far only issued two micropatches for XP (BlueKeep, EsteemAudit) - both of which were critical remotely exploitable 0days when we patched them (i.e., without an official patch by Microsoft), but Microsoft subsequently decided to provide official updates for both even though XP and 2003 were long out of support. We have no experience with Windows Embedded but would be willing to test 0patch on it if there was sufficient interest for that. Under current priorities, we're only issuing XP micropatches when a critical 0day comes out that affects them, but if it made financial sense for us, we'd be willing to backport more patches to these old systems." So, it would seem the only micropatches you are currently receiving for your system are for vulnerabilities in other software you have installed on it. (If I understand correctly how 0patch works from their user manual and FAQ.) In the end the decision is yours as to whether you want to spring for the Premium version, but continuing to use the Free version certainly won't hurt anything. In fact, I installed 0patch Free on a fully updated non-POSReady 2009 XP Home system the other day to see what results it would give me and it told me the following info: 332 patches installed 7 patchable modules 56 patches available for purchase 2 patches were applied 17 applications were patched IMO, it's a pretty neat little program and I'm quite impressed with it so far. Plus, you can't beat free, if that's the option you choose. The only other thing I would add/suggest is that both you and Sampei.Nihira contact 0patch at support@0patch.com with your interest in adding the CVE's you both specifically mentioned and see what they have to say. Please keep us posted.

Since you seem to be the only one getting any updates for POSReady 2009, maybe you'll magically attract KB4507704 and be able to share it with those of us who are interested in installing it. Have you ever tried to manually search for KB4507704 on MU?

Thank you for the clarification and explanation, EdSon. So, if I wanted to undo the renaming of the atmfd.dll file to x-atmfd.dll (i.e., restore the original atmfd.dll file), would I then use the following commands: cd %windir%\system32 ren x-atmfd.dll atmfd.dll & ren dllcache\x-atmfd.dll atmfd.dll

First of all, somewhat similar to this, I tried to manually rename the atmfd.dll file by right clicking on it and I ended up with two files named atmfd,dll and x-atmdf.dll and now I cannot delete either one. Why does atmfd.dll auto-restore and why can I not manually delete x-atmfd.dll ? Forgive my further ignorance here, but I assume ren is the abbreviation for rename, correct? Also, I do not understand the second part of the last line above which reads ren dllcache\atmfd.dll x-atmfd.dll Could you please clarify this for me? What does this command mean and what does attempt it to accomplish?