EvanD Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3. Done.RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE . I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drugwash Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Please check again, EvanD; I got the right version here just as advertised, downloaded yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3. Done.RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE . I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 .If you downloaded this a couple of days ago, maybe, but now has RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 .Please download again...http://www.mdgx.com/files/RICHED9X.EXEFYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanD Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 FYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTHAll is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 FYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTHAll is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help.You're welcome. ______________________________________________________UPDATED · 2-19-2009Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 dencorso:I have, however, to point out that two of the newest updates might contain files of yet a higher version that work OK, by my own tests, with Win 9x/ME, namely:SCHANNEL.DLL v. 4.87.1964.1880, from KB831225Thanks a bunch, I got the Q831225 NT4 hotfix.And I'll post it at my WinNT4 fixes page:http://www.mdgx.com/wnt4.htmBut I realized I already had the file by itself [without the hotfix somehow, probably sent by erpdude8 a while back], it actually installs on Win95/98 [all editions] as part of CRYPT9X.EXE:http://www.mdgx.com/files/CRYPT9X.EXEMore info:http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#HEPStrange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?btw:Wonder how I use File Manager from NT4 SP6a in XP?Wonder no more... FMNTHTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 UPDATED · 2-20-2009Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 UPDATED · 2-25-2009Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) Strange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?Strange, but true! Here's some more info on it, from Petr: File versioning question Edited February 27, 2009 by dencorso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drugwash Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 MDGx, please have a look here; information provided by the FileInfo plug-in in Total Commander: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) BTW, Drugwash, it catched my eye you're using v. 4.86.1964.1880... Consider updating to v. 4.87.1964.1880, so you'll get 128-bit strong encryption.Quoting from Petr's post I mentioned above, he found out and reported this little pearl:Sometimes it gives additional information:SCHANNEL.DLL (40-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.86.1964.1880 (text)SCHANNEL.DLL (128-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.87.1964.1880 (text)Even if he posted it in reverse, because 4.8X.1964.1880 is in fact the binary version number (the one returned by getver.exe), while the text version number is 5.00.1880.14... See also the NT part of the security update info of MS04-011 Edited February 28, 2009 by dencorso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drugwash Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Thanks for the information, dencorso. The screenshot above pertains to the library found in the NT4 packages on MDGx's site; the one installed on my system is actually older (the original one?): 4.87.1959.1877 / 5.0.1877.6 as reported by FileInfo.I remember having some trouble in the past - can't tell what exactly, though - and I had to downgrade this file (and possibly some others I forgot about).I was about to say that MDGx was wrong saying it can be found in CRYPT9X.EXE, but then I checked the inf and it's being renamed at install time, that's why I didn't notice it at the first glance.Given the past experience (blurry as it is), I'm a little reluctant to installing that package again, for fear that I may screw up the system, but eventually I might do it after backing up all the involved files. It may take a while to notice all the possible side-effects though and by then I might forget the culprit (yeah, got a short memory ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 UPDATED · 3-20-2009Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 You are too much!I counted 18 new system updates since october 2008! And +- 45 since the release of uSP3-0-beta3, on october 2007! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGx Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 UPDATED · 4-4-2009Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now