Pale Moon 26 for Atom/XP doesn't start with POSReady registry hack

[submix8c]

@Dibya - HxD would probably work as well as HexAlter. It appears that HexAlter simply replaces byte-wise starting at a given Offset each byte until done.

 

Here are some folks who apparently have the (some) code?

https://gist.github.com/grantland/7427669e5a948977694d

 

And I agree with dencorso on his suggestion. Also my thanks for pointing out yet another tool.

[heinoganda]

@Drugwash

 

Of course, it will continue to change with a new version of Pale Moon, the easiest was to modify the query to the effect that is sought here for a different value as "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\POSReady". In my amendment, he is looking for "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\NOF...PM", must be a bit of fun. Find it for the rest very insolence ever so a query in Pale Moon installed. (probably because someone has donated)

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by heinoganda

[liamZ]

Thanks heinoganda for the solution.

 

I found another way of doing it without touching palemoon.exe

 

If you run WinXP as a limited user like i do (and using the program SuRun to elevate permisions when needed), or you just run palemoon as a limited user, you just can remove users permissions from the key:

 

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady

 

and leave only Administrators, SYSTEM and CREATOR OWNER

 

and modify the owner to Administrators.

 

After that you can run palemoon as a limited user without any problem.

 

After these changes I still get posready updates through system tray icon and install them without problems, but installing them through internet explorer ends with an error.

[heinoganda]

@liamZ

 

Personally, I use this POSReady entry in the registry not to times I published POSReady updates itself Modify if necessary correct (for example by KB3072630 for Microsoft Installer, where one has removed the query of the existing version of the file update_SP3QFE.inf) having to be installed easily in a normal XP environment. Think forward at this point that there's various nasties on us XP users. I'm curious how it soon with Chrome looks, as here the support for Windows XP stopped this year.

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by heinoganda

[Drugwash]

Unfortunately they're not playing a fun game. When there is no choice we must create one. Forcibly, if there's no other way. But a clever one at the same time.

[dencorso]

Here is another interesting post by Moonchild:

 

As stated before: flipping the registry entry sets you up to become a mixed version of OS components that we can't support.

The check is not water tight, I'm well aware of that. It doesn't need to be "more sophisticated" either because anyone who has wilfully changed this key has done so with full knowledge of what it means, and the presence of that key means either:

It's really POSReady2009, which we don't support, OR

It's Windows XP which has been set up to be changed with incompatible components and libraries not belonging to it, which we don't support.

Yes, it can be tricked. No, I don't feel like it's necessary to start checking actual library versions or make it an arms race of check versus user. The presence of the key itself is an indicator that you're running on something unsupported. If you insist on finding workarounds for it, then that is entirely up to you, but we STILL won't support it, even if you thwart the check.

[Drugwash]

If that guy were a real programmer he would've put a one-time messagebox stating something like "You're a stupid user using a stupid hack, therefore don't come crying to me when your computer blows up because you ran my software. Do you agree to this? if not, eff off!" and a couple buttons labelled 'Yes' and 'No'. The choice belongs to the user.

I was about to say more but I've had enough barking up the wrong tree.

Real programmers died long ago and a new generation might take too long to rise again.

[heinoganda]

Here is a medicine for the portable version of Pale Moon v26

 

What is needed is the tool "hexalter.exe", "delcert.exe", "upx.exe" (upx391w.zip), "PEChecksum.exe",  as well as the file "palemoon.exe" from unpacked Portable, from the folder "Bin\Palemoon", which should be located in a directory. Now just create and run a batch file with the following code.

delcert.exe palemoon.exe
upx.exe -d palemoon.exe
hexalter.exe palemoon.exe 0x274A=0x4E,0x00,0x4F,0x00,0x46,0x00,0x55,0x00,0x43,0x00,0x4B,0x00,0x50,0x00,0x4D
PEChecksum.exe palemoon.exe
upx.exe --best palemoon.exe

 

[Drugwash]

How about going at 0x0A31 and replacing 0x75 with 0xEB? That'd be less error prone.

 

EDIT :

For the sake of completeness, let's put it this way:

- the portable version of Palemoon is compressed with UPX so it has to be uncompressed before patching

i.e. upx.exe -d drive:\path\to\palemoon.exe

- at hex address 0x0A31 replace value 0x75 with 0xEB (that'd be JNZ --> JMP)

any hex editor would do, I use XVI32 just because I had it around

- save the edited file

in my tests it didn't need any certificate removal or checksum fixed

- compress the executable back using UPX (optional, it runs fine as it is)

i.e. upx.exe --best drive:\path\to\palemoon.exe

Edited January 28, 2016 by Drugwash

[LoneCrusader]

Interesting how this issue is playing out over at the PaleMoon forum.

 

Moonchild and Tobin are defending their position citing what Microsoft thinks about this or that and claiming that they made the decision because they don't want to support "Frankenstein" versions of Windows, and basically telling people if they don't like it they can find another browser. What a load of .... I mean, so what? A simple notification that the POSReady configuration is not supported and that any bugs reported that cannot be reproduced in a standard Windows XP system will not be addressed should be enough to satisfy their supposed concerns.

 

Then enter the "fanboys" who will defend them no matter what, and have nothing useful to say, only rubbish like "run Windows 7."

 

And now apparently they are silencing dissent by actively locking threads about the issue and directing everyone to read what Microsoft has to say about it.

[Drugwash]

We still run 9x in 2016 with no support from "mommy" Microsoft, why not run other "unsupported" software as well? Remember: Tihiy by himself years ago created LameSkin which evolved into Revolutions Pack while everyone around mocked him saying it can't be done. We should prove Microsoft and anyone else in their stronghold that we have better programmers and they are not for sale!

[Jody Thornton]

Well I run the original Windows 8 and that's no longer supported.  I wonder if I should upgrade ???

[Jody Thornton]

It works - Whew!  I was sure it would, but still.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Interesting how this issue is playing out over at the PaleMoon forum.

 

 

 

And now apparently they are silencing dissent by actively locking threads about the issue and directing everyone to read what Microsoft has to say about it.

That kind of stuff will encourage people running old browsers with vulnerabilities! That's absurd!

Edited January 28, 2016 by RJARRRPCGP

[LoneCrusader]

 

Interesting how this issue is playing out over at the PaleMoon forum.

 

 

 

And now apparently they are silencing dissent by actively locking threads about the issue and directing everyone to read what Microsoft has to say about it.

That kind of stuff will encourage people running old browsers with vulnerabilities! That's absurd!

 

Essentially Moonchild just made himself and PaleMoon into tools for Microsoft. Repeating the official Microsoft talking points... "unsupported" "insecure" "dangerous" "hack" and other rubbish. The decision of a user to choose this OS or that OS or to modify said OS in any way whatsoever should be none of his concern. Build the browser for XP, and if any reported bugs cannot be reproduced on a normal XP setup, then don't spend time on them. How hard is it? He claims that it was not intended to "target" anyone, but a poster over there made a good point about the fact that why has this suddenly become a problem when it wasn't before? Of course this was "dismissed" with vague claims about unspecific "strange problems under XP" rather than answered.

 

LATER EDIT:

And now they have resorted to deleting posts that criticize their decisions. A very well written post was just removed.

Edited January 28, 2016 by LoneCrusader