If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sought: IE 5.0 "high encryption" (128 bit) patch - scratch that.
9.8 G.eye,
When browsing anything.microsoft.com I've found that Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the default browser I use on my win-98 systems) renders very little of those pages. Do you mean that most of those requests return errors (fake or not), or that you do not see all of the content ? In the latter case I often simply set the "page style" to "none", and get to read (most) everything again. :-) And thanks for those links. I'm not sure they apply though, as the error message was/is a page coming from the MSDN server (meaning there definitily was a connection present). Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: 9.8 G.eye schreef in berichtnieuws ... "R.Wieser" wrote: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/831167 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/842607 I just tried to visit those pages, but they only gave me a "An error occurred", "Please try your request again later" page. When browsing anything.microsoft.com I've found that Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the default browser I use on my win-98 systems) renders very little of those pages. On the other hand, Opera 12.02 works very well. Any chance you can post those switches you mentioned (I do seem to need them, as trying to apply that IE4DOM.exe gives a "not compatible to the current system" error) The following is a copy of support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/831167 ==================================== You cannot log on to a Web site or complete an Internet transaction, or you receive an HTTP 500 (Internal Server Error) Web page Symptoms You may not be able to log on to a Web site or complete an Internet transaction after you install the 832894 (MS04-004) security update. For example, when you submit your user name and password to an SSL-secured Web site by using a form on a HTTPS Web page, you may receive an HTTP 500 (Internal Server Error) Web page. Cause This problem may occur after you apply the 832894 security update (MS04-004) or the 821814 hotfix on a computer that runs Microsoft Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0, Windows Millennium Edition, or Windows 98. For additional information about these software updates, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 832894 MS04-004: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/832894 821814 You receive a "page cannot be displayed" error message when you post to a site that requires authentication https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/821814 The 832894 security update (MS04-004) and the 821814 hotfix change how the Internet extensions for Windows (Wininet.dll) retries POST requests when a Web server resets the connection. Programs that use Windows Internet (Wininet) application programming interface (API) functions to post data (such as a user name or a password) to a Web server retry the POST request without including the POST data if the Web server closes (or resets) the initial connection request. Note A POST request does not include POST data if its content length is set to 0 or is empty. Sometimes, this behavior prevents another reset and permits authentication to complete. However, you may receive an HTTP 500 (Internal server error) Web page if the Web server must have the POST data included when Wininet retries the POST request. Resolution Update information To download and to install this update, visit the Microsoft Windows Update Web site, and then install critical update 831167: http://update.microsoft.com Administrators can download this update from the Microsoft Download Center or from the Microsoft Windows Update Catalog to deploy to multiple computers. If you want to install this update later on one or more computers, search for this article ID number by using the Advanced Search Options feature in the Windows Update Catalog. For more information about how to download updates from the Windows Update Catalog, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 323166 How to download updates that include drivers and hotfixes from the Windows Update Catalog https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/323166 The following files are available for download from the Microsoft Download Center: Download the Q831167.exe (32-bit) package now. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...128-5053-48A7- 8526-BD38215C74B2&displaylang=en Moved to he http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=18786 Direct Download: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...d-90f6-f812639 11eb7/Q831167.exe Download the Q831167.exe (64-bit) package now. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...750-ED3F-4C28- 92FE-9ADFE75F4C26&displaylang=en Release Date: February 12, 2004 For additional information about how to download Microsoft Support files, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 119591 How to Obtain Microsoft Support Files from Online Services https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/119591 Prerequisites To install this update, you must be running Internet Explorer 6 SP1 (version 6.00.2800.1106) on one of the following versions of Windows: Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 Microsoft Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Service Pack 1 Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Service Pack 3, Service Pack 4 Microsoft Windows NT Workstation, Server, and Terminal Server Edition 4.0 Service Pack 6a Microsoft Windows 98 Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition Note Because the 832894 (MS04-004) security update supports Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, and Windows 2000 SP2, this update will be also be supported on those operating systems. Restart requirement You must restart your computer after you apply this update. Update replacement information This update replaces 821814 for Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows 98. Note This update does not replace 821814 for Windows Server 2003 because the problem that is described in this article does not occur on Windows Server 2003-based computers. Deployment information The packages for this update support the following Setup switches: /q : Use Quiet mode or suppress messages when the files are being extracted. /q:u : Use User-Quiet mode. User-Quiet mode presents some dialog boxes to the user. /q:a Use Administrator-Quiet mode. Administrator-Quiet mode does not present any dialog boxes to the user. /t: path Specify the location of the temporary folder that is used by Setup or the target folder for extracting files (when using /c). /c Extract the files without installing them. If /t: path is not specified, you are prompted for a target folder. /c: path Specify the path and the name of the Setup .inf file or the .exe file. /r:n Never restart the computer after installation. /r:i Prompt the user to restart the computer if a restart is required, except when this switch is used with the /q:a switch. /r:a Always restart the computer after installation. /r:s Restart the computer after installation without prompting the user. /n:v Do not check version. Use this switch with caution to install the update on any version of Internet Explorer. For example, to install the update without any user intervention and without a restart, use the following command: q831167.exe /q:a /r:n File information The English version of this update has the file attributes (or later) that are listed in the following table. The dates and times for these files are listed in coordinated universal time (UTC). When you view the file information, it is converted to local time. To find the difference between UTC and local time, use the Time Zone tab in the Date and Time tool in Control Panel. Date Time Version Size File name Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------- 06-Feb-2004 18:05 6.0.2800.1405 588,288 Wininet.dll 07-Feb-2004 01:41 6.0.2800.1405 1,796,608 Wininet.dll IA-64 Workaround If you cannot apply the update that is discussed in the Resolution section, you can use one of the following server-side actions to work around the problem: Increase the HTTP keep-alive timeout interval on the Web server or the proxy server. There is no setting in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) to control the keep-alive timeout other than the Windows registry KeepAliveTime value. But with some Web servers and some proxy servers, you can specify a connection expiration time. If you can specify a connection expiration time in the Web server or the proxy server, increase the keep-alive timeout interval. See your Web server documentation for the correct setting name and value. The default keep-alive timeout value for Internet Explorer is one minute (60 seconds). Therefore, you must use an HTTP keep-alive timeout interval on the Web server or the proxy server that is greater than one minute. For additional information about the Windows KeepAliveInterval parameter, the Windows KeepAliveTime parameter, and the Internet Explorer KeepAliveTimeout parameter, click the following article numbers to view the articles in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 314053 TCP/IP and NBT configuration parameters for Windows XP 120642 TCP/IP and NBT configuration parameters for Windows 2000 or Windows NT 813827 How to change the default keep-alive time-out value in Internet Explorer https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/813827 Disable the HTTP "keep alive connections" on the server. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 238210 HTTP keep-alive header sent whenever ASP buffering is enabled https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/238210 Status Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. More information Important This section, method, or task contains steps that tell you how to modify the registry. However, serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly. Therefore, make sure that you follow these steps carefully. For added protection, back up the registry before you modify it. Then, you can restore the registry if a problem occurs. For more information about how to back up and restore the registry, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: 322756 How to back up and restore the registry in Windows After you apply the 831167 software update that is described in this article, programs that use Wininet functions to post data to a Web server will resend complete POST requests when a connection with a Web server is reset. To enable header-only post behavior, create a DWORD value named SampleApp.exe, where SampleApp is the name of the executable file that runs the program. Set the DWORD value's value data to 1 in one of the following registry keys: For all users of the program, set the value in the following registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\FeatureControl\Retry_HeaderOnlyPOST_ OnConnectionReset For the current user of the program only, set the value in the following registry key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\FeatureControl\Retry_HeaderOnlyPOST_ OnConnectionReset For example, to enable header-only post behavior in Internet Explorer and in Windows Explorer, create DWORD values for Iexplore.exe and for Explorer.exe in one of these registry keys, and then set their value data to 1. ========================= |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sought: IE 5.0 "high encryption" (128 bit) patch - scratch that.
Rudy,
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:45:32 AM UTC-6, R.Wieser wrote: Its quite possible your browser is set to silently switch from HTTP to HTTPS. I think I've set that to "ask me" a long time ago (as I want to stay informed about what happens in/with my browser :-) ) No it's behaving exactly as IE of old did, it shows the site's address in the address bar and I can see the s is missing anytime I do that. My take on the jump to SSL sites is that it's because of the news that the NSA is snooping - Gee, really? And this is news? Deal is even though rumor say they can crack anything and view all, what that actually costs them is computer time. SSL isn't worth the time if everyone is doing it and they are. All thanks to the NSA and what's his name who told the world they be watching.. Maybe you are just looking at the wrong version number? In my case it doesn't matter, both the "Fileversion" and the "Productversion" show the same version. And yes, the "Productname" is indeed "Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System" But you keep looking at the wrong thing !!! All of those are the wrong place to be at. http://files2.neatreceipts.com/tools/images/121_01.gif Hope you can see that. Do not concern yourself with anything below Description: Which is the second line of text in the entire box - the ONLY official number is in the first line of that box. Do not look at the second line or any others below there. Everything called Fileversion, Productversion, etc should be treated as manure fit only for the garden. Stay out of the garden. Concern yourself with the top inch of that box ONLY - there is the only official version number.. Perhaps your Dutch version has had a mistake done in this regard? It would be very easy to do. Flash is going to die soon enough on it's own, the end is nigh as they say. Yep, its already shunned by FF to name one. Doesn't make any difference to me though, I never installed it. Perhaps lower versions of FF? 34.0.5 FF, 16.0.0.296 flash working fine together on XP, I do have both set to never update or nag for updates or check for updates same as Java, have to keep an address book just to learn about these super secret settings that should be the DEFAULT settings but never are. If it's not the lower versions of FF that refuse current flash versions I wonder if it's not so much the lack of SSE3 instruction set in lesser capable CPUs? They can detect that you can't run SSE3 instruction set and so you can't download or install flash that relies on those. This is exactly why I'm running Pent 4 which does these. I do keep seeing references to the lack of flash availability and I don't understand where it comes from. But I long ago gave up on 98se and flash working together, never got FF going in 98se either. To be replaced by another monster even worse, no doubt. You mean HTML5 ? In that case I agree. Where I could decide *not* to accept Flash content (by simply not installing the ActiveX control) I'm not at all sure that I can refuse such content in a HTML5 enabled browser. And it seems to be designed to give a website a *lot* of access to the browser. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sought: IE 5.0 "high encryption" (128 bit) patch - scratch that.
Lee,
My take on the jump to SSL sites is that it's because of the news that the NSA is snooping There is another reason: noone can intercept and alter the content. That is good when you want to download software (or anything else with active content), it also is is a defense against "free internet" (hotspot) providers wanting to replace ads with their own. In other words: don't assume Googles push to use HTTPS everywhere is for *our* benefit. :-) For the rest ? When browsing I'm not doing much, if anything that needs to be kept a secret. I do not quite understand and agree with mere (informational) websites *forcing me* to go SSL. But you keep looking at the wrong thing !!! [Snip link] Hope you can see that. Ah, so *thats* the problem. My properties do not show the/an "Assembly version" entry. If it's not the lower versions of FF that refuse current flash versions I wonder if it's not so much the lack of SSE3 instruction set in lesser capable CPUs? That might also be causing problems, yes. But as I've not had it installed for over a decade or so I seem to have skipped such verson problems. :-) And that is what irks me about HTML5: Something I do not want (active content I have littl-if-any control over streamed into my 'puter) being forced by building it into the browser. :-\ Oh well. I take it thats "progress" in its finest. :-( Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: Lee schreef in berichtnieuws ... Rudy, On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:45:32 AM UTC-6, R.Wieser wrote: Its quite possible your browser is set to silently switch from HTTP to HTTPS. I think I've set that to "ask me" a long time ago (as I want to stay informed about what happens in/with my browser :-) ) No it's behaving exactly as IE of old did, it shows the site's address in the address bar and I can see the s is missing anytime I do that. My take on the jump to SSL sites is that it's because of the news that the NSA is snooping - Gee, really? And this is news? Deal is even though rumor say they can crack anything and view all, what that actually costs them is computer time. SSL isn't worth the time if everyone is doing it and they are. All thanks to the NSA and what's his name who told the world they be watching. Maybe you are just looking at the wrong version number? In my case it doesn't matter, both the "Fileversion" and the "Productversion" show the same version. And yes, the "Productname" is indeed "Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System" But you keep looking at the wrong thing !!! All of those are the wrong place to be at. http://files2.neatreceipts.com/tools/images/121_01.gif Hope you can see that. Do not concern yourself with anything below Description: Which is the second line of text in the entire box - the ONLY official number is in the first line of that box. Do not look at the second line or any others below there. Everything called Fileversion, Productversion, etc should be treated as manure fit only for the garden. Stay out of the garden. Concern yourself with the top inch of that box ONLY - there is the only official version number. Perhaps your Dutch version has had a mistake done in this regard? It would be very easy to do. Flash is going to die soon enough on it's own, the end is nigh as they say. Yep, its already shunned by FF to name one. Doesn't make any difference to me though, I never installed it. Perhaps lower versions of FF? 34.0.5 FF, 16.0.0.296 flash working fine together on XP, I do have both set to never update or nag for updates or check for updates same as Java, have to keep an address book just to learn about these super secret settings that should be the DEFAULT settings but never are. If it's not the lower versions of FF that refuse current flash versions I wonder if it's not so much the lack of SSE3 instruction set in lesser capable CPUs? They can detect that you can't run SSE3 instruction set and so you can't download or install flash that relies on those. This is exactly why I'm running Pent 4 which does these. I do keep seeing references to the lack of flash availability and I don't understand where it comes from. But I long ago gave up on 98se and flash working together, never got FF going in 98se either. To be replaced by another monster even worse, no doubt. You mean HTML5 ? In that case I agree. Where I could decide *not* to accept Flash content (by simply not installing the ActiveX control) I'm not at all sure that I can refuse such content in a HTML5 enabled browser. And it seems to be designed to give a website a *lot* of access to the browser. Yep, you read my mind... about:config holds the off switch for HTML5 in FF. A pain to turn on and off, but it could be done. Flash was easy, there was a killbit one could toggle in the registry for it, one moment it was working fine and the next it wasn't even installed nor could it auto download for self installation as so very many sites back then were written to do for you, just killing your bandwidth in the meantime. Turn it back on and it worked perfect again. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.w...7146e1ec8dab04 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
win9x patch "KernelEx" makes WINXP APPS work on win9x o.s. | BUDDY | General | 0 | September 26th 09 02:46 AM |
MS Security patch doesn't "take" with successive scans | turbguy | General | 14 | September 30th 07 01:08 AM |
"High" DTR and RTS serial port lines | Francis M | General | 2 | December 17th 06 10:30 PM |
"Himem.sys fehlt", "Steuerung der A20-Leitung nicht möglich!!" - und dann nichts gewesen? | Alex Wenzel | General | 7 | March 8th 06 08:01 PM |
"Patch" for shmgvw.dll exploit | Heirloom | General | 32 | January 5th 06 02:16 AM |