Unofficial Windows XP Service Pack 4...by Harkaz

I don't particularly remember even posting that, but I think I was talking about the patch itself. It's like "wow we got updates!" but uh... that seems very counter intuitive to be pleased about, given the entire situation revolves around not updating.

 

Hopefully all will go smooth enough with this and it could end up being as well received as SP5 for Win2K.

Regards Eck

 

Yeah that I agree with. But yet there are also plenty of people out there fairing just fine without any updates to speak of, and care not for any. I was one of them until stumbling upon these and doing the dirty work myself to find they're perfectly safe/legit. So why not take advantage of it? Even though I'm quite sure I could survive until 2019 on XP without them and be just fine.

It's kind of hard to be compromised when you have a virtually non-existent attack surface, a default deny/whitelist OS policy & classic HIPS approach. Tight rules and stateful inspection for both incoming & outgoing packets, allowing only what is absolutely necessary. And have everything you do virtualized, being a closed session, reboot, or re-image away from being back to a clean slate.

But that's just me. Keep in mind that in here you're talking to hardcore, OCD whack jobs like myself, not average users. Your advice would be prudent to the latter. I recommend Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate x86 to everyone else whose machines I work on. And a real-time AV. Though I advise them to wait a week until applying the monthly WU's because of all the problems.

 

I wish XP people would give it a rest. Funny thing, we BLOCK contact from XP machines now on UTM/NGFW deployments.. Good luck connecting to some pretty major companies, and soon, some pretty major websites. There is a zero tolerance (thankfully) in IT for continued refusal to let XP die once and for all.. I assume we will have to go through the same pain with Win7.. Similar to how some people wouldn't let knitting machines take over hand knitting.

 

This exists. Has for some time. If I recall, Major Geeks has it, as does MSFN.

 

luciddream: have you installed the SP4?

Another hold out with xp pro here but dual boot win 7 64bit but it seems slow even though its on a ssd and xp on a hd !?!

 

Good to know that it`s still out there might even,if time allows throw Win2K on an old laptop, just for kicks.

Regards Eck

 

You might want to check these out while you're at it.
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120936-kdw-fcwin2k/
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/

 

Bookmarked them.

Cheers

Regards Eck

 

If I were running a standard equipped XP, I'd try SP4. My primary reason for avoiding it is that my XP systems are highly stripped down. The unofficial SP4 includes components and updates for components that I've removed or never installed to start with, Net framework for one. For me, it would create more work restripping out the components I'd already removed than it would save.

When 98 was getting unofficial updates and service packs, we had multiple options available to us. AFAIK, this is the first unofficial service pack for XP. As popular as XP still is, there will be more choices with more options.

Regarding the comments about updates, the difference between getting more updates for XP and using a supported OS to get the same updates should be obvious to anyone that hasn't ignored what many of us don't like about the newer systems.
The loss of control
The ability to close all of the ports
All of the extra logging and spyware abilities in the newer operating systems.

We shouldn't have to trade security for privacy. With the unofficial updates, we don't have to. Those who don't like hearing about XP should find a life outside of creating more labels to stick on those who don't share their positions.

 

This has probably been mentioned before, but it may be easier to just create a .reg file with the following and add it to the registry. This will allow XP machines to get updates again by making your machine look like it has POSReady which is a slimmed down version of XP that is run on many POS machines.

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]
"Installed"=dword:00000001

 

Huh? What an assumptive statement.

There's all kinds of reasons why someone might still need a workable XP machine. If that's the case, then it's only reasonable to look at the options available for securing it, and to decide whether a particular method is sound enough to trust.

 

So you're not using EMET I take it?

Out of curiosity, what is your security approach on your XP systems?

 

Just wondering if Microsoft is aware of the PosReady registry entry then why wouldn't they plug it? They must
know XP is still being used and downloads to Windows updates are taking place.

 

I use a default-deny policy enforced by classic HIPS, web content filtering, and a tight firewall. I was looking at OpenEMET but the development seems to be stalled. On a couple of units, I'm experimenting with SandBoxie as an additional layer.

 

Probably only a bunch of geeks, including myself, use that hack. I don't think they should be worried. One thing to know about this registry modification is that it seems to be non-reversible. That's why IT managers avoid it.

RJK3 asked for security schemes on XP. Mine is in my signature.