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. 


jds

128 bit SECUR32.DLL - Myth or Missing?

Recommended Posts

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 by jds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jds

Yep, we are saying the same thing, only a dfferent one. :w00t:

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. :unsure:

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jds

Yep, we are saying the same thing, only a dfferent one. :w00t:

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...