On decommissioning of update servers for 2000, XP, (and Vista?) as of July 2019

[AstroSkipper]

18 minutes ago, maile3241 said:

Here:

Have you taken this screenshot using ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a in IE6?

Edited March 4, 2022 by AstroSkipper
correction

[maile3241]

9 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Have you taken this screenshot using ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a in IE6?

Yes I did.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, maile3241 said:

Yes I did.

As I mentioned above I do not use these OSs and therefore I can't check what's going on. Windows XP 64 bit has not received any updates since 2015 and has no native TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 support. There are no updates to add these features subsequently. Without further analysis, I would say that MU access via IE obviously requires an older version of ProxHTTPSProxy in such a system, heinoganda's version is already too up-to-date. I think there are problems with SHA256, SHA1 seems to work fine. In the changelog of whenever's ProxHTTPSProxy you can read:

Quote

Version 1.3.1 (20151001)
--------------
* Certifications are now signed via SHA256 instead of SHA1

I guess that is probably the crux of the matter. You have used a version still supporting SHA1 for signing certificates, the more recent seem to be problematic due to signing via SHA256.  

[maile3241]

29 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

As I mentioned above I do not use these OSs and therefore I can't check what's going on. Windows XP 64 bit has not received any updates since 2015 and has no native TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 support. There are no updates to add these features subsequently. Without further analysis, I would say that MU access via IE obviously requires an older version of ProxHTTPSProxy in such a system, heinoganda's version is already too up-to-date. I think there are problems with SHA256, SHA1 seems to work fine. In the changelog of whenever's ProxHTTPSProxy you can read:

I guess that is probably the crux of the matter. You have used a version still supporting SHA1 for signing certificates, the more recent seem to be problematic due to signing via SHA256.  

Exactly! That's why it also works with IE6. Wouldn't it make more sense to use this version instead of @heinoganda's version since you don't necessarily need the PosReady updates?

[AstroSkipper]

14 hours ago, maile3241 said:

14 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Expand  

Exactly! That's why it also works with IE6. Wouldn't it make more sense to use this version instead of @heinoganda's version since you don't necessarily need the PosReady updates?

Generally, no! Due to security reasons only. We do not use ProxHTTPSProxy for accessing MU exclusively. The more recent, the more safer! We want to establish secure connections using IE engine in a couple of applications. But for using to access MU only, my answer is yes!  

Edited March 6, 2022 by AstroSkipper
correction

[maile3241]

3 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

Generally, no! Due to security reasons only. We do not use ProxHTTPSProxy for accessing MU exclusively. The more recent, the more safer! We want to establish secure connections using IE engine in a couple of applications. But for using to access to MU only, my answer is yes!  

Thank you for your opinion.

[AstroSkipper]

26 minutes ago, maile3241 said:

Thank you for your opinion.

Of course, it's just my opinion after analyzing the facts. Anyway, you're welcome! 

[AstroSkipper]

And now, exceptionally one comment totally off-topic. 
@feodor2 I hope you'll get home safe, and I wish you and your family all the best! This is coming from a person having the greatest respect for you!
I think I do speak here in the name of many people!
Hoping, everything will end well,

AstroSkipper

Edited March 5, 2022 by AstroSkipper
addition

[xpandvistafan]

3 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Generally, no! Due to security reasons only. We do not use ProxHTTPSProxy for accessing MU exclusively. The more recent, the more safer! We want to establish secure connections using IE engine in a couple of applications. But for using to access to MU only, my answer is yes!  

Right. SHA-1 is an insecure signing algorithm and has now been replaced by SHA-256. So my recommendation is the same, you can use the SHA-1 version for Windows Update only, and use the SHA-256 version for all other websites.  

[RainyShadow]

I don't get it.

What's so great about the build by @heinoganda to receive so much praise by MSFN members as if he was the original dev?!?

I have used the official version of ProxHTTPSProxyMII on my XP without any problems ever since i heard about it.

 

I'm not having any of his "PM me to get the download link" crap...

[AstroSkipper]

4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

What's so great about the build by @heinoganda to receive so much praise by MSFN members as if he was the original dev?!?

ProxHTTPSProxy and its reinvented successor ProxHTTPSProxyMII were originally developed by whenever. Therefore, first credits to whenever of course. If you want to know which modifications @heinoganda had made to ProxHTTPSProxyMII, you have to read following thread completely:

There you can find all changelogs and information about @heinoganda's releases. For example he created ProxHTTPSProxy_PSwitch.exe to start and set up the proxy automatically and delete its settings when closing. He did a lot of modifications and updating. Simply said its version is more recent than the original version. I wouldn't say we praise him. But it's a kind of respect to people having done hard work to a project.

4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

I'm not having any of his "PM me to get the download link" crap...

Providing programs in that way I don't like too. You feel like a supplicant if you want a download link.

4 hours ago, RainyShadow said:

I have used the official version of ProxHTTPSProxyMII on my XP without any problems ever since i heard about it.

My favourite one is HTTPSProxy. @Thomas S. provided it in form of a download link. Unfortunately the link is invalid for a long time, but I decided to provide a fresh one because it would be a pity if such a program were simply lost. You can find the link under section Downlads in my thread: 

Anyway, HTTPSProxy is more comfortable, easier to manage and control. In a nutshell, simply great! 

Edited March 6, 2022 by AstroSkipper
addition

[RainyShadow]

Ok, i may get a warning again, but...

5 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I wouldn't say we praise him. But it's a kind of respect to people having done hard work to a project.

AFAIK he updated couple libs, then compiled the thing as .exe, and also made a launcher script for the lazy. Then kept it all private! Just like his other tools! 

It just ticks me the wrong way to see mainly his build advertised here despite it not being publicly available, while there is no mention of the always available official builds. 

Imagine someone new here sees that, then goes to ask for this private build, but the guy hasn't even been around for almost two years ...

 

[WULover]

@mail3241 Does it work in Windows 2000 SP4?

[maile3241]

3 minutes ago, WULover said:

@mail3241 Does it work in Windows 2000 SP4?

Yes, but you have to have ProxhttpsProxy running on the host system as it doesn't run on Windows 2000.

Edit: The nginx method doesn't work on W2k.

Edited March 6, 2022 by maile3241

[WULover]

Ok, thanks