So, all three dll's are somehow "queried" or "checked":

• rsaenhs.dll
  
• rsaenh.dll
  
• schannel.dll
  

it is very possible that one only is enough to "trigger" the patching, though the order in which they are listed seem to suggest that the "first one" is rsaenhs.dll.

The evidence is that indeed, only one of these is needed to trigger the 128 bit sub-version of the patch (albeit 4.10.2226, whereas the 56 bit sub-version is up to 4.10.2228), since the first and third files in the above list don't even exist on my system.

Anyway, some updated information :

On my W98SE system with IE6SP1, again, the only file I needed to temporarily substitute to trigger the 128 bit patch was 'rsaenh.dll' from 'ie5dom.exe'. This is version 5.00.1877.3, dated 1999/9/3.

The version that 'dsclient.exe' (and I'm sure, the earlier 'dsclient.msi' ) doesn't recognize properly is version 5.00.1877.8, dated 1999/8/17 (yep, the later version has an earlier date!). This is the version in 'ie501dom.exe' and also 'iedom.cab' from IE5.01SP2, IE5.5 and IE6.0SP1.

Joe.

Edited November 18, 201015 yr by jds

@jds

Yep, we are saying the same thing, only a dfferent one.

I am saying that probably the instsec.dll is triggered by ANY of the three mentioned .dll's.

You are saying that it is triggered by "rsaenh.dll" ONLY.

But actually you tried "rsaenh.dll" ONLY.

I mean, we have no evidence that if INSTEAD of "rsaenh.dll", you had tried with "rsaenhs.dll" ONLY (OR with "schannel.dll" ONLY) you wouldn't have had the same result.

"Final" statement should be:

the instsec.dll is probably triggered by any of the three .dll's:

1. rsaenhs.dll
   
2. rsaenh.dll
   
3. schannel.dll
   

of the above, jds tested successfully #2 ONLY, thus proving that what you need to trigger the patching is an updated "rsaenh.dll".

No tests were performed with the other two .dll's.

jaclaz

@jds

Yep, we are saying the same thing, only a dfferent one.

I am saying that probably the instsec.dll is triggered by ANY of the three mentioned .dll's.

You are saying that it is triggered by "rsaenh.dll" ONLY.

Hi jaclaz,

No, I am not saying that. I'm simply saying that "rsaenh.dll" is sufficient.

We are actually in agreement.

Joe.

PS. BTW, I did a minor edit earlier, I had written "first and second", which obviously should have been "first and third".

In the near future I'll compile I have compiled an Iexpress installer for modded secur32.dll 4.10.2228 to be installed after ADS client.

Enjoy.

[tx to dencorso who alerted me about this new fix!]

HTH

I've just discovered another 128 bit update, this one's for Outlook 2000 :

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17576

It says it's for Outlook 2000 SR1, I have Outlook 2000 SP3, yet the DLL in this update (exchcsp.dll) was newer than mine. Basically, you run the update, wait a couple of seconds, then reboot (no dialogue is produced, so you're left wondering what to do).

Joe.

Does this update need to be patched?

Does this update need to be patched?

Hi PC,

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean, should this go into the 98SESP3+, then the answer is probably not. This update seems specific to Outlook 2000, although it might also work for older versions and Exchange client, if that still exists. Aside from the 'exchcsp.dll' version 5.5.3151.1, I think this update may also make some registry changes. BTW, Outlook 2002/XP has 'exchcsp.dll' version 10.0.2327, FWIW.

Joe.