Post by: dave1006 on June 07, 2002, 05:15:23 PM
quote:
Windows Update v4 Available for Windows 2000 SP2
Time: 05:54 EST/10:54 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Julien Jay
Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 users can now access the brand new and convenient Windows Update version 4 website after they download
an update on the actual Windows Update website. Windows Automatic Updating feature notifies you when critical updates are available
for your computer. This feature replaces Critical Update Notification if it is already installed. Critical Update Notification will
no longer offer critical updates.
http://www.activewin.com/awin/default.asp
It looks and runs much better for me at least...
-------------------------
|David Gallagher
|dave at smokeajay.co.uk
-------------------------
Post by: pooms on June 07, 2002, 07:50:08 PM
an error 0x80072F76. I get this even with Proxomitron in
bypass mode, but if I take out the proxy settings in IE6
and go direct to windows update it works. I haven't figured
out why putting Proxomitron in the middle, even in bypass
mode, would cause this.
Post by: Jor on June 07, 2002, 08:14:18 PM
Just add this to your bypass file:
# Entries to allow Windows Update to do it's stuff
[^/]++windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
[^/]++download.windowsupdate.com/
office.microsoft.com/productupdates*
The last line is only if you also use MS Office.
Post by: pooms on June 07, 2002, 08:26:28 PM
machine involved during the windows update, one called
wustat.windows.com I thought maybe I had to add that to
the bypass list, but no.
Actually wustat.windows.com might be a candidate for the kill
list. The URL sent to it from my machine looks like this:
GET /wutrack.bin?U=add54a1f5e121046a25c90a70f171ac6&C=IU_SITE&A=n&I=&D=&P=5.0.893.2.0.3.0&L=en-US&S=f&E=80072f76&M=&X=020607192252883 HTTP/1.0
and it returns a single byte, which makes me suspicious. Although the
error code I got is embedded in it, so maybe it is just reporting the error.
Post by: hpguru on June 07, 2002, 09:34:57 PM
Post by: dave1006 on June 07, 2002, 10:34:48 PM
[^/]++windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
[^/]++download.windowsupdate.com/
in my bypass lists, and im not even sure if these servers are applicable for the new system... So not much help, sorry.
(This applies using both 4.2 and 4.2.2beta)
-------------------------
|David Gallagher
|dave at smokeajay.co.uk
-------------------------
Post by: hpguru on June 07, 2002, 11:43:38 PM
Post by: pooms on June 08, 2002, 02:54:28 AM
I ended up using the Network Monitor to capture TCP/IP packets and I
compared what happened when I went direct to the windows update site
and when I went through Proxomitron with Proxomitron in bypass mode.
What I found was that this HTTP HEAD command:
HEAD /v4/iuident.cab?0206080135 HTTP/1.0
contained a Pragma: no-cache header when sent by Proxomitron, but
when sent direct from IE6.0 it had a Cache-Control: no-cache
header instead.
So I took Proxomitron out of bypass mode, turned on the
"Pragma: Don't force reloads (out) filter" (which removes the
Pragma: no-cache header) and that fixed it.
In fact, (this just dawned on me) with this change, I now seem to
have Proxomitron working on the Windows Update site WITHOUT
putting the site in the bypass list!!!
Post by: sidki3003 on June 08, 2002, 03:32:02 AM
BTW, if you are a member of Yahoo! Groups proxlist,
the people there would be glad to hear that as well.
TA, sidki
Edited by - sidki3003 on 08 Jun 2002 06:14:19
Post by: sidki3003 on June 08, 2002, 03:45:58 AM
you will bypass the web filters, but the header filters are still active.
In = FALSE
Out = TRUE
Key = "URL: Bypass selected (Out)"
URL = "$LST(Bypass)"
Replace = "$FILTER(False)"
OT: the [code] tag doesn't seem to work.
Edited by - sidki3003 on 08 Jun 2002 04:49:42
Post by: pooms on June 08, 2002, 05:05:03 AM
Maybe you did the same thing I did: I tried to access Windows
Update with all my normal filters on and found something was
causing an error on the page.
Here's my current conclusions about accessing Windows Update
with Windows 2000 through Proxomitron.
You don't need to put Windows update in your bypass list if:
you make sure you don't send a Pragma: no-cache header to
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/v4/iuident.cab
you make sure you send a User-Agent value that microsoft likes
you don't enable the "Hide Browser's Identity from JS" filter
And it appears that you can safely put the site wustat.windows.com
in your kill file without affecting Windows Update. The parameters
of the URL sent to this site look suspiciously like they are being
used to track user information.
I'll post this over on the proxlist group, although I'm a member, there
are too many messages to read there so I rarely do.
Post by: sidki3003 on June 08, 2002, 05:37:46 AM
quote:
... you make sure you don't send a Pragma: no-cache header to
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/v4/iuident.cab
Same here, though i would recommend [^/]++windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ e.g. for future changes
quote:
you make sure you send a User-Agent value that microsoft likes
"Opera/6.03 (Linux 2.4.34 i886) [en]" works here as well. But for playing safe you are right
quote:
you don't enable the "Hide Browser's Identity from JS" filter
Other web filters interfere as well, above posted bypass filter will do it.
quote:
And it appears that you can safely put the site wustat.windows.com
in your kill file without affecting Windows Update.
Same here.
Edited by - sidki3003 on 08 Jun 2002 06:45:23
Post by: pooms on June 09, 2002, 06:50:38 AM
being POSTed to windowsupdate containing information about
your computer, turn on "View Posted Data" in
the HTTP Message Log. Too bad Proxomitron can't apply filters
to outgoing request contents, or we could write filters to
manage what we want microsoft to see (why do they need to
know how much free disk space I have on each of my drives???)
Post by: hpguru on June 09, 2002, 07:07:00 AM
quote:
...(why do they need to know how much free disk space I have on each of my drives???)
That doesn't sound good. I keep wondering when the privacy watchdogs are going to start howling.
Post by: dave1006 on June 09, 2002, 04:56:28 PM
quote:quote:
...(why do they need to know how much free disk space I have on each of my drives???)quote:
That doesn't sound good. I keep wondering when the privacy watchdogs are going to start howling.
I think the answer may be 'to check that you have room to install updates'.
I personally think that MS could easily (far, far too easily) record all kinds of user data and use it without peoples knowledge - but if they were going to, they'd do it in some very hidden way that is embedded within the OS. A simple HTTP call is a little too obvious.... Or maybe thats what they want us to think... ;-)
-------------------------
|David Gallagher
|dave at smokeajay.co.uk
-------------------------
Post by: hpguru on June 09, 2002, 11:21:06 PM
quote:
I personally think that MS could easily (far, far too easily) record all kinds of user data and use it without peoples knowledge - but if they were going to, they'd do it in some very hidden way that is embedded within the OS. A simple HTTP call is a little too obvious.... Or maybe thats what they want us to think... ;-)
Well certainly they *can* do that but that's not to say they would. If they were doing something sneaky and underhanded like that it would have already been exposed and their corporate and government customers would scream bloody murder until MS released a patch to eliminate the behavior. Some might even press charges against them. With more and more businesses and whole goverments turning to open source solutions as time progresses MS simply cannot afford to be playing games like that.
As far as checking available disk space, that is probably correct but I see no need whatsoever to send it across the network.