@Compu KTed Do you have Dependency Walker? DW is one of the handiest tools for these kinds of problems. It's an unzip and go utility. Use DW to launch the problem application using the profile function. It will tell you what files are missing or which system calls are not functioning.
Haven't used it before, but if it will make solving issues with apps easier then maybe it's worth checking out.
I haven't run into that issue very often. It will depend largely on what you've removed and what applications you're working with. On mine, the most common problem has been applications that depend on Internet Explorer components or those of its rendering engine. Quite often, the problem is a single missing file. Most of the time, the application will work if that missing file is added to the applications own folder. Done this way, the file is available to that application but not to the rest of the system.
What is the difference between StartPage and Ixquick? The difference between our two search engines is that StartPage returns Google results, while Ixquick returns results from other search engines, but not Google. Both are equally private. https://support.startpage.com/index...-the-difference-between-startpage-and-ixquick (213.144.0.0-213.144.255.255) Put this IP Range in Kerio and set it to display alert when using Ixquick. Let me know the results.
Checked Dependency Walker and opened the executable security app and ran profile. Showing EFSADU.DLL (system cannot find the file specified) // yellow ? IESHIMS.DLL (system cannot find the file specified) // yellow ? WER.DLL (system cannot find the file specified) // yellow ? MPR.DLL (shows as red icon) c:\windows\system32\MPR.DLL (PI) Function: WNetRestoreConnectionA KERNEL32.DLL (shows as red icon) c:\windows\system32\KERNEL32.DLL (PI) Function: FlsAlloc Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found. Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing export function in a delay-load dependent module. NOTE: Those warnings show up in other apps and MPR.DLL as well.
Yes so they say. A little while ago I posted about the difference here You're still "trusting" a third party. Nevertheless they're absolutely adamant they won't bend over to TLA's and they don't log addresses etc. Just noticed Startpage has a new "proxy" feature. Not sure how new it is. It's probably more beneficial for you to tell me first what I should be seeing and why. (I still have many "knowledge gaps" in using Kerio)
Must be IP addresses Ixquick is using and had set rule for block and alert. Can connect to search engine. To many popups so need to change IP address blocking list and also the home page in browser.
The following dll file is needed to run Windows Event Viewer. I still use the viewer. I purposely kept the dllcache folder files for now until I have all the components I want to remove is finished. Copied apphelp.dll from dllcache folder to system32 folder and Event Viewer is now functional. Now I can see all the warnings and errors when components are removed and now they are showing up in Event Viewer. Note: Apphelp.dll > Application Compatibility Client Library
When removing IE HTML Rendering Engine there was a slight issue when opening up Services Management Console in extended view mode. It opens up blank. Switching to Standard view presents a popup message. To avoid seeing the popup message and seeing no Services (blank) I set the Services MMC to open up in Standard view by default. Popup message: File Download -Security Warning Name: Pagebreak_1 Type: Unknown File Type From: --mmc: pagebreak.1 Save or Cancel Navigate to Windows system32 folder and locate 'services.msc' file. Backup the file and store in a safe place. Right-click on 'services.msc' file and choose 'Author' from list. In Services click on 'Standard' and at popup message for file download click Cancel. On menu click on File > Save > click Yes to update the file and then exit. Services Management Console should now open in Standard view. Checking for errors and warnings in Event viewer. Windows Event Viewer > System Event Properties Type: Error Source: Application Popup Event ID: 877 Description: There was error [DATABASE OPEN FAILED] processing the driver database. Copy the file “drvmain.sdb” from dllcache folder to “C:\WINDOWS\AppPatch” and the error is solved.
I can't get anywhere getting extensions installed into SeaMonkey. Ive tried compatible versions of Prefbar, and Request Policy. Ive tried the manual install with the xpi file from desktop via the addon manager and tried going in through the addons manager onto SeaMonkeys site. It doesn't have Prefbar even when searching for addons. After digging I can find it on Mozillas site and Ive tried a direct install from there. All of them turn up the same error.... signing could not be verified -260. Tried doing a search for hours to try and find a fix for this and turned up empty handed. Unless I get these extensions installed, I've hit a brick wall with SeaMonkey and it's a no go. I'm totally fed up with Firefox and it's sly underhanded tricks and keen to ditch it but Im not sure where to from here. I spent most of yesterday and day before wrestling with this. Yesterday there was a long thread of outraged and angered devs and others who are utterly furious with Mozilla for making it mandatory to have all extensions no matter what age, needing to be signed... There's ways around it, but at great inconvenience to devs and others who make a few tweaks for their own use only... this is yet another nail in Mozillas coffin. One question I'm asking myself is how much autonomy has SeaMonkey really got from the others. How much are they forced to cave in to the whole Mozilla thing?
Finally found that extension. Its called Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks. Another possible issue you might be running into. If you're using Proxomitron, you'll need to bypass it to make the add-on manager work. @Reality Just so we're on the same page, which version of SeaMonkey are you working with? I've never had those kinds of problems installing extensions.
The extension has changed, as have the previous versions. They're all signed now. I don't see any unsigned versions of them. I still have a copy of 1.3 without the signing requirements. Not sure which versions of SM it will work with. It doesn't work with 2.0.14.
@Reality Not sure what is going on with your extension(s) issues in SeaMonkey. I did try installing both PrefBar and Request Policy in SeaMonkey 2.30 (still have installer) without any issues. (PrefBar v. was 7.0.0) I believe RP was version 0.5.28.1- signed. Pale Moon was also able to install PrefBar. Maybe consider updating SeaMonkey to a newer version than what your using or if there is an about: config setting that has to be added or changed. Update: I also tested SeaMonkey v. 2.1 and was able to install PrefBar v. 6.5.0.1-signed and Request Policy v. 0.5.28.1- signed. I have a feeling though the farther I go back (older versions) in browser and extension(s) versions there probably will be problems.
@noone_particular @Compu KTed Here's the various versions I've been working with ... (Potential feature creep versions aside) for testing and learning purposes to be on the same page, is to be on the same versions if at all possible. That's why I'm using SeaMonkey 2.0.14 Except for the first entry, which I (unsuccessfully) tried to install locally (through the addon manager), the rest have been tried both online, and locally. The "disable addon compatibility checks" addon wasn't signed last night when I went to get it. It's the first extension Ive seen that still isn't signed, other than those special builds for devs (cant remember exactly what they're called.) So it seems I cannot install ANY extensions whatsoever signed or not. Now, I was able to locally install prefbar 6.5 into this particular profile I'm using on FF ATM which didn't have it installed prior because Id not got around to it yet. There was none of this drama about not being able to verify it so I'm wondering if its something to do with old certs in SeaMonkey because its an old version or I have got a wrong setting on the Cert Manager interface somewhere. I read SeaMonkeys help file last night (until my head hurt ) about certs and what not. I felt it explained things pretty well buts it's a very complex area, and one I would appreciate help on if I am to grasp it better. When I was setting up Proxo some months back noone, I hadn't got to the stage of installing extensions in SeaMonkey and Ive not even got proxo installed on this current system yet, so proxo is not in the equation at present. AFAIC we were also doing lots of spadework with proxo in FF then things halted because of something to do with certificates and proxo. I had installed TOR but had not chained anything up in SM. KeyPer, if you know an about:config setting shoot forth, as always, complete instructions much appreciated. I still think it's something to do with out of date certs or a wrong setting in the panel.
On XP, there's no reason that you can't run a later version of SeaMonkey. My virtual XP units have newer versions, whatever was current when I set them up. My 98 system uses 2.0.14. I'm pretty sure that SeaMonkey has seen some changes regarding extensions. The unsigned add-on compatibility extension works with the 2.1 version of SeaMonkey. Do you have the link you used to get the disable addon extension? When I went there, it was signed. I wonder if this varies by location. Regarding Proxomitron and HTTPS, this problem isn't completely solved. It works with the primary HTTPS connection. The problem is with the additional content delivery connections that use HTTPS. Those connections fail because the browser is seeing Proxomitrons certificate instead of the certificates used by the CDNs (Content Delivery Network). On the plus side, when ads start using HTTPS, their certificates will fail too.
Was just about to post this and saw your answer come in noone (Wilders gave a little message .... never seen that feature before!) The Link I used was what you supplied above. However.... I just dug a bit deeper because on the top level of the page it didn't say anything about being signed but as I navigated to the versions they all say signed and not compatible before 2.1 for SM Can you now show me where this unsigned version is? I will update to SM 2.1. I asked you a couple of pages back what SM version you were on so I could install it to make things easier for exactly this purpose. Sorry I should have asked what it was for your XP. Now as a point of interest I was just able to see ONE version at the very bottom of Prefbar that WASNT signed. I successfully installed it. Edited to add: what version are you using for XP so I can be on the same page?
I don't know if the unsigned version is available on the web. I found a copy on my system. I can upload it if you want.
On the dual boot test system I'm running version 2.16 on XP. On the SP3 stripping test system I'm running 2.33.1 On both systems, the signed and unsigned versions both installed properly from file. I didn't test online installs. I don't see a visible difference other than the size. The signed version is twice the size of the unsigned. The names are exactly the same. Once installed, the addon manager shows the one version as signed. If it helps, here's the file hashes for both. Signed: MD5 5f2c40f4e00b6cbf64efd10cabe7a5dd SHA-256 9cf8254f846b5ba6c8ec0f1c11de049b65cbddb7ce9883acde0bb1d24e908254 Unsigned: MD5 b452a1951d7535a5f711868753cdebaf SHA-256 5d9e022b7816c4e7bad8049f1237f8913b52606a1f2b9bb9ed815de8fd81f80e
How to avoid the error (e.g.) SeaMonkey could not install the file at: <address and extension> because: Signing could not be verified -260? You would need to delete the signing data folder in the extension. Do the following. In the browser choose 'save link target as' to the extension your downloading to the location of your choice. (e.g.) prefbar-6.5.0-sm+fx.xpi Right-click on the xpi file you saved and choose Rename from list. Rename to: prefbar-6.5.0-sm+fx.zip Click on zip folder and locate META-INF folder and delete the folder. Right-click on the zip folder and again choose Rename from list and rename to: prefbar-6.5.0-sm+fx.xpi Click yes to popup message. Navigate to browser Add-ons Manager > Install... > locate the xpi file > and click 'Install Now' button and restart the browser. You should hopefully see extension installed. NOTE: The META-INF folder stores the signing data. How to disable Compatibility checking in browser? (older versions) e.g. SeaMonkey v. 2.0.14 Open Browser and type about:config in address bar. Right-click anywhere in the Preference Name space and select New Boolean. Enter the preference name: extensions.checkCompatibility and set it to false. As the screenshot shows Add-on Compatibility checking is disabled. In my example it also shows a version of Request Policy that is not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.0.14. NOTE: I would still recommend updating the browser to a newer version so everything is functioning properly. Whether updating to latest browser version I leave to the user to decide. This was done for testing purposes only.
Since both my virtual and physical 98 units have Request Policy 0.5.22 on SM 2.0.14, I could install 0.5.28 to one of them and see if there are any behavior issues. I stayed with 2.0.14 on the 98 systems for compatibility reasons. I'm not sure that version is a good choice on XP due to HTML5 compatibility issues. That said, it would make comparisons easier if we use the same version. The virtual SP3 unit that I'm using for XPLite and other stripping experiments does not yet have a browser permanently installed. I'm considering the current version of SM, 2.33.1 unless we find undesirable behaviors that can't be configured out of it, or out of the available versions of the extensions.
To follow up on the compatibility issue with Request Policy v.0.5.28 in SeaMonkey v.2.0.14. The extension will install and run, but doesn't function properly. You can edit the Install.rdf file to not show message 'Not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.0.14. When looking at RP rdf file it shows the minVersion of SeaMonkey as 2.1 and MaxVersion as 2.23 Changing it to 2.0 eliminates the Compatibility message, but AFAIK does nothing else. An earlier version of Request Policy may work, but I don't know for sure. (XPSP3)
