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. 



Ninho

Member
  • Content count

    186
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Ninho

Profile Information

  • Country
  1. @Mathwiz, All : as the originator of this thread, just wanted to "plus-one" that the "ProxHTTPSProxyMII" (.exe compiled version) + Proxomitron is working here and has been easy to set-up and configure thanks to your added remarks and caveats, solving the original problem. Congratulations added for your rather remarkable searching... and finding skills !
  2. Great find, @Mathwiz ! It's actually many many yrs since I've not used the Proxomitron but it's still present and runnable on this system. However after a glance at the proxhttps page it seems like it needs many elements in addition to the proxo (openssl, python) which altogether might hide a few roadblocks - or not. I'll report back when I've had time to actually install and try that thing on my system... Postscript : I'm seeing on their forum that I should meet (major?) complications when installing and configuring proxhttps owing to the fact that my Windows XP (nor Seven) "boot" disks are not "C:". Oh well... Life wouldn't be life without complications, would it ?
  3. I don't like Mozilla FF, at all. I'm still keeping an FF 10 ESR for cases like this; the FF 3.5 I mentionned in O.P. is normally reserved for basic Tor browsing here. Re Opera 12\\ no worky in Win 98 even w/ KernelEx say you ? Surprises me, I think that's the versions I have (on another PC). (Edit) Strike that, that's Opera 10.63. Not too useful at many modern web sites... (/Edit) While at it, I tried navigating to https://aidanwoods.com/blog ... not unexpectedly, Opera 10 / Win 98 have been "unable to locate remote server".
  4. @Mathwiz: thank you, very nice and clear explanation of the varieties and nuances of key-exchange and en/decryption algos. @Jacklaz, MathW, Heinoganda : - I am not running real-time AV scanners, much less TLS proxies (mitm things!) - Chrome's Error code : Inaccessible Web page ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH. The Web page at address https://www.aidanwoods.com/blog/faulty-login-pages/ may be momentarily inaccessible or it might have been moved permanently.
  5. @Jacklaz : I don't know where you got this idea that I ignored your suggestions nor thought I "knew more than you", God forbid ! But I was not going to (re)install the QTweb or Opera 12 just for a check at most peripheral to the question... Happy new year !
  6. Not at all. The question is whether it's possible to fix XP's native crypto libraries in order to accept the ECC (or whatever fancy) certs, not whether non-native crypto such as in Qtweb, Opera-Presto support them. The OP even asserted Firefox on XP does support the otherwise offending certs - which you decided to ignore :=) In addition, what Heinoganda said and you quoted here is in doubt:«The actual problem is the Windows XP no ECC certificates can be administrated or not registered and these are recognized as invalid.» This was certainly true of XP until SP2, but... isn't native support for ECC crypto one of the touted addidtions in XP-SP3 ? I guess it's more subtle than support versus no-support, the issue may be one of incomplete/buggy support for some flavor of ECC... Off-topic rant : why are ECC-based certs seemingly gaining wider use ? Of course they sport smaller key-lengths, but ISTM their security against progress in cryptanalysis is even less assured than RSA, whose mathematics are much better understood.
  7. I guess it depends on the version of the Google Chrome browser one is running. While researching this issue a little more in breadth (if not in depth) I read that Chrome has had its own crypto for TLS and so on, starting from Chrome v. 37. But in my case I have Chrome 34 and stuck with it (for it is the last Chrome version able to run on a processor without SSE2 like my AMD Athlon XP) - this explains why our respective findings may differ in this respect : my Chrome still relies on Windows for the TLS crypto stuff.
  8. On my XP SP3, running with the dll's from ReactOS : similar to Heinoganda's report, Chrome works fine, including with https sites, but the problem with sites s/a the example given upthread using newer incompatible encryption and/or key exchange only, is not solved by the replacement yet :=( I am suspecting the schanell.dll is not the one (or not the only one) involved.
  9. Interesting find, thanks. Is there even a slight chance for such substitutions to work ? I know I've tried subsituting dll's from win 7 - not that I really expected that to work - and indeed, XP just died (blue-screened) during the boot sequence. OK, if you could post the dll's somewhere, I'll try substituting them (I'd rather not download the whole ReactOS - beta, which I don't use).
  10. I have XP SP3 updated under the guise of "faux POS" (not all updates applied though) Lately I find some cases - more and more often - of HTTPS sites that : - under XP, won't open in Chrome (nor IE), i.e. using Windows own crypto API - but that - - will open under Firefox - which has its own crypto stuff - even a very old version (3.5) works ! - under Seven, for compare, same sites do open even in Chrome (or, God forbid! IE). An example page there exhibiting the phenomenon : https://www.aidanwoods.com/blog/faulty-login-pages/ Is it expected with fully updated XP SP3 and/or "POS" windows ? Or have I missed a related update ? For reference I have : crypt32.dll version : 5.131.2600.6459 (xpsp_sp3_qfe.131005-0434) and rsaenh.dll : 5.1.2600.6924 (not that I'm half sure those particular dll's are the keys of the problem)...
  11. Poll and Discuss Defragmentation Software

    Yet the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter, "defrag.exe" version 4.70,.belonging to Windows ME but which I use in 98SE, has a Symantec copyright that further references Intel application accelerator, iirc.
  12. Poll and Discuss Defragmentation Software

    Why indeed... is more or less what I've been saying, for full disk defrag choose one defragger (choice not critical) and keep using one and the same (per disk partition). I like to use the Windows built-in ones. Very wrong ! Microsoft has provided different defraggers since Windows 95, rarely house-made, more often crippled versions, licensed from various 3rd parties (Symantec, Intel...). I don't consider all of them "suck", not that they excel, but they get the job done, and the perceived price is right :=)
  13. Very nice ! Thank you, Bphlpt and regards, too !
  14. Another incredible webkit-based browser, which has its own thread in this very forum : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170291-web-browsers/ I'm trying it now - didn't know it nefore - I must say I'm impressed ! Extremely slim, portable installationn 6 MB ! that's six megabytes, not gigs :-) Fast, and also consumes much less RAM than its better known rivals, and with all that it does what you expect from a modern browszer, and more... WOW ! I'm bluffed ! Works fine on the Athlon-XP, of course since that is the thread's motto !
  15. Poll and Discuss Defragmentation Software

    There's no defragger which would be best in an absolute sense, esp. in multi-boot environments, as someone above correctly pointed out. Now to the poll's simple question "which defragger do you use (in practice)?", my simple answers : - for casual whole-disk defragging, Windows' built-in - more precisely, the defragger built-in to the "windoze" which that particular disk is most tied to. I do not defrag linux "ext" or "reiser" partitions. Not that Windows (whichever) defragger does the best possible job, but it's counter productive to run different defraggers on successive occasions, since each defragger has different "ideas" and algorithms and so, it will take a long time destroying the work of the previous defragger... The choice is not critical, but choosing and keeping to one and the same (at least, per disk partition) is more important that using the "best" for whatever measure of "best"... Oh, and free (no cost) ones are good enough, keep the money for other goodies. - for special tasks, viz when needed to defragment a single file or afew selected files : Sysinternals' contig.exe , defraggler... Those were my 2 cents, take or leave... :=)
×