An XP registry hack was posted here to extend the updates on XP ,
The hack modified the registry to list the product version as XP embedded.
I tried it on my old XP machine which I don't use anymore and the first
time I tried to update XP the hack worked.
Now a week or so later I checked to see if more updates were available
and I got the "non genuine Windows" notification.
So to all those out there....DO NOT USE THE HACK!
I was able to get rid of the message by deleting the WGA keys but still
no updates are available so the hack is useless.
BTW: The modified keys are undeletable and System Restore will not work
so I will need to use a remote registry editor to get rid of those
For me this is not a big deal as I'm a computer experimenter and look at
this as fun...however most of you out there are not going to like this.
The hack does not cause XP itself to think it is POS2009. If you apply
the hack and right-click on My Computer and select properties, the
system will still report the OS as Window XP, SP3. Not POS2009.
The hack makes the WindowsUpdate mechanism think your system is
POS2009. Everything else on the system, all other software, and even
the OS itself, does not look at those registry entries.
Was version of XP does that "old machine" have?
Is it SP2 or SP3?
Was any hardware changed on it such that it failed the hardware hash?
Did you, say, remove, replace or simply unplug the CD rom drive? Did
you change or clone a hard drive or video card, or add or remove or
otherwise change the amount of installed RAM? Did you change the
ethernet card (or disable the on-board ethernet adapter?).
Did you change or update any hardware drivers? It is a known fact that
updating some drivers, especially video-card drivers, will change the
hardware hash reported to the validation routine. If too many hardware
items come back with different hashes, then Windows will automaticially
put itself into a "non-validated" state and will remain there for (I
think) about a month before other things start to happen. The remedy is
to let the validation routine do an on-line check with Microsoft, where
it will re-validate itself.
There is a program called "xpinfo.exe" which will tell you which
hardware items are passing and failing the validation hash. If the
system does not have 5 positive "hash votes" (out of something like 10
or 13 possible votes) then then your XP installation will consider
itself to be "non-genuine" until you allow it to perform an on-line
Also note that bios updates of the motherboard and other hardware
devices like CD-rom firmware will also likely cause a loss of a positive
There are ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER REPORTS of other systems experiencing WGA
failures because of using the POS2009 hack.
What also could have happened is that when you were performing the
WindowsUpdate check, you chose "Automatic" instead of "Custom", and by
choosing automatic you did not pick and choose which updates were being
downloaded, and you downloaded one of those WGA validation checks and
your system failed the check (which happens many times, even on legit
I always tell people who manually update XP to never download the WGA
"Genuine Validation" update, and to de-select it from the update list so
the system will never download it even when they switch to automatic
instead of custom update.
On Friday, May 30, 2014 8:45:21 AM UTC-4, philo wrote:
Ahh, I live for moments like this, ie to see Homelessguy exposed
as the village idiot. And it didn't take long. I would have thought
it could be some future update, 6 months or a year from now that would
probably screw it, but it only took less than a week!
With a hack like that, you've created a time bomb. You don't know when
and if the next update is going to screw the whole thing. And as others
have pointed out, not sure that there was ever much upside. Most of the
security holes have been shaken out of XP long ago. And many of those
were related to Internet Explorer. You can't run the last two versions
on XP anyway and I doubt MSFT is going to issue IE updates in the future
for an EOL IE through updates for their embedded products.
In all fairness, the version of Windows I had may not have been
genuine...and I am sure many out there are in the same boat...
but at any rate I wanted to issue the caution.
That said...to those using XP I don't know if Windows updates do all
that much anyway as far as offering protection.
More importantly is
1) Common sense
2) Keeping AV and malware checkers updated and schedule scans
3) Using a browser other than IE such as Firefox or Chrome
and keeping the browsers updated
I agree. Anti-virus programs are, IMHO, much over-rated. They're good
at checking for old news, but it's more important to start with a
platform that's not particularly prone to attack (i.e. one other than
Take your foot out of your mouth and look for more evidence that philo
was correct. Here's a news flash: He wasn't.
An XP validation failure after using this hack has not been reported
anywhere where these registry keys were first discovered and tested.
Anyone using this registry trick should turn off automatic updates and
perform manual updating - if only to avoid downloading the only thing
that Macro$haft could use to torpedo this XP update scheme: WGA updates
(Windoze Genuine disAdvantage). Something for which has yet to happen.
Micro$haft would never do anything in terms of messing with this update
scheme to trip up XP systems if it means anything more than a zero
percent chance of also screwing up any of the POS2009 systems out
there. It's far too important to all stakeholders that Meekro$oft not
try to be clever and screw with XP users if there is any chance of also
messing up any of the systems running POS2009.
And now it's time to take your other foot out of your mouth, because of
the three updates that are available for XP systems using this registry
KB2926765 / MS14-027
Vulnerability in Windows Shell Handler Could Allow Privilege Elevation
KB2931365 / MS14-026
Vulnerability in .NET Framework Could Allow Elevation of Privilege
KB2953522 / MS14-029
Security update for Internet Explorer versions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
It's as clear as day that one of them is for not just IE8, but IE 6 and
7 as well, which completely trashes your belief that MS isn't / wasn't
going to be updating and patching those versions of IE.
There will certainly be more XP, IE and .net vulnerabilities to be
discovered and your claim that XP users are better off to NOT try this
way to update their systems will leave no doubt in anyone's mind that
you are the real village idiot here.
On Friday, May 30, 2014 10:06:56 PM UTC-4, o m e H o m e G u y wrote:
Now the instructions are changing.....
if only to avoid downloading the only thing
MSFT has no obligation to the handful of people like you
who for some bizarre reason, think that it's a good idea to
apply future updates for embedded XP to XP Home, Pro etc. MSFT has
stated that support for XP is over, that they will not issue future
updates. Any future updates are for embedded XP and are only
tested and verified to work with it. MSFT can't stop people from
doing foolish things. If your system gets "messed up", it's *your*
doing, not MSFTs. And I'm sure MSFT won't care about the .00000001%
of their customers in that group with you. It's like taking some
electronic system component
for a Ford Mustang and shoving it in Taurus, because you *think* it's
compatible, then expecting Ford to protect you from your own dumb
actions so that it can't damage your car. "Why Ford would never
screw around with the Taurus's out there..... Surely this Mustang
electronic part will work...." Good grief.
As others have pointed out to you as well, if you're running IE6, 7 etc,
you have bigger problems than security updates, a lot of websites will
no longer even work with it. And curiously, I don't
see XP Embedded on the list of systems those updates apply to either,
why is that?
They can do whatever they like. So far, one person here has tried
it and reported what happened. People can reach their own conclusions.
As far as being the village idiot, you've demonstrated to just about
everyone's satisfaction with your loon OT posts, that you're a deranged
troll, totally lacking in reasoned judgement.
The Village Idiot and Google-Groper trader_4 wrote:
The point I made went completely over your head.
Of course Micro$hit has no obligation to XP users.
The point was that MS is playing with fire if they try to screw with
their WindozeUpdate mechanism to try to trip-up XP systems using this
hack if there is any chance that it will also screw up some of the
Why are you repeating old news?
And why do you fail to understand that POS2009 is simple XP-SP3 with a
different license agreement?
Again you are showing that you are totally clueless when it comes to the
internal architecture of the similarities and differences in the
architecture within the NT-based Windows product family.
The MS marketing department has accomplished it's mission with you -
which is to create artificial differences in the same product by using
marketing and product-naming tricks and have you believe that "under the
hood" they are vastly different products.
That statement is a diversionary tactic by you. We were not discusing
the relative merits of the different versions if IE in terms of
So by trying to divert the discussion on that point, you admit that you
were wrong in claiming that MS was or would no longer be
updating/patching those old versions of IE.
Maybe because you haven't looked here:
======================MS14-029: Security Update for Internet Explorer (KB2953522)
Deployment: Windows Update, Microsoft Update, Important/Automatic
Updates, WSUS, and Catalog
Classification: Security Updates
Security severity rating:
* Critical: Windows 8.1, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 8, Windows RT,
Windows Embedded Standard 7, Windows 7, Windows Vista, and
Windows XP Embedded
* Moderate: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server
2008 R2, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2003
* MS14-021 (KB2964358) on Windows 8.1, Windows RT 8.1, Windows Server
2012 R2, Windows 8, Windows RT, Windows Server 2012, Windows Embedded
Standard 7, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2008,
Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, and Windows XP Embedded
Windows 8.1, Windows RT* 8.1, Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8, Windows
RT*, Windows Server 2012, Windows Embedded Standard 7, Windows 7,
Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows
Server 2003, and Windows XP Embedded
Approximate file sizes:
* Internet Explorer 11 for Windows 8.1 update: ~ 15362KB
* Internet Explorer 11 for Windows 8.1/Windows Server 2012 R2 x64
* Internet Explorer 11 for Windows RT 8.1 update: ~ 15592KB
* Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 8/Windows Server 2012 x64 update:
* Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 8 update: ~ 17367KB
* Internet Explorer 10 for Windows RT update: ~ 14407KB
* Internet Explorer 9 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7/
Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 update: ~ 28926KB
* Internet Explorer Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7/
Windows Server 2008 R2 for x64-based Systems update: ~ 38863KB
* Internet Explorer 10 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7/
Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 for x64-based Systems update:
* Internet Explorer 10 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/
Windows 7 Service Pack 1 update: ~ 20090KB
* Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7 update:
* Internet Explorer 9 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7 update:
* Internet Explorer 11 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7 update:
* Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Embedded Standard 7/Windows 7/
Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 update: ~ 17532KB
* Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Server 2008 R2 IA-64 update:
* Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2008 IA-64 update:
* Internet Explorer 9 for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista update:
* Internet Explorer 9 for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista x64 update:
* Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista update:
* Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista x64 update:
* Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista update:
* Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 update:
* Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Server 2003 update:
* Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 IA-64 update:
* Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 x64 update:
* Internet Explorer 8 for WEPOS and POSReady 2009 update:
* Internet Explorer 6 for WEPOS and POSReady 2009 update:
* Internet Explorer 7 for WEPOS and POSReady 2009 update:
A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product
that could affect your system. You can help protect your system by
installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the
issues that are included in this update, see the associated Microsoft
Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to
restart your system.
Oh look - what is that?
Do I read IE6, 7 *and* 8 for POSready 2009?
Oh look - what does it say under "Target Platforms" ? Does it say
"Windows XP Embedded" ?
That's called a slam. That's how I slam you with the facts.
How does it feel?
Everyone has just seen me slam you.
And has express doubts himself about what his exact experience was.
Yes, you have again proven to be just that - the village idiot.
Want to try again to debunk and inject FUD into the applicability of
these POS2009 updates to any generic Windows XP system?
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:02:16 AM UTC-4, o m e H o m e G u y wrote:
No, the point went completely over your head. I never
said that MSFT would deliberately screw with anything. They
don't have to. They have clearly stated that they are not
issuing updates for XP for home and business. And they have
specifically warned against using the Embedded XP hack, stating
that they are not testing, validating, what those updates will
or won't do when you install them on a product that they
are not intended for. THAT is the issue. Might they put something
into a future update to make sure it won't install on a system
that you're not legally entitled to install it on and for which
it's not intended? Perhaps. So, yeah add that to your list of
Show us where MSFT has said that. And why do you fail to understand
that applying software updates that you have no license for is
You're demonstrating that you're making wild assumptions about
what effect an update for one product will have on another
and have no experience in the real world with what it takes to
validate a product. Everyone reading this knows you have no way
of knowing what those updates will or won't do. You don't have
the source code, don't know what specific differences there are
and you haven't validated a damn thing. That's with regard to what's
out right now, let alone what's coming in the next 3 years.
It;s been brought up before in the thread you started, by posters
other than me. It's perfectly valid. A huge part of security
vulerability is browser related. Yet you want to present a hack to
update an OS with Internet Explorer updates for versions of IE that
won't even work anymore. Who is even using IE6? The last 3 versions
of IE won't run on XP period. If you care about browser security on
XP, just install an alternate up to date browser. Good grief.
As has been pointed out to you a dozen times now, if you're using
IE6 you have bigger problems than security updates.
Sure, you have no qualifications whatever to determine how future
updates intended for Embedded XP will affect XP Home. Microsoft has
specifically advised against doing it.
You whole position here is like the nutty lady that was arguing
about airplane fires. Her faulty logic was that because a basic
handout about fires doesn't specifically say that inhaling smoke
particulates is harmful and can cause injury, then it means that
inhaling them is merely an "inconvenience".
Your faulty logic is that because Embedded XP has a lot in common
with XP Home, that it's perfectly fine and legal to trick XP Home into
applying future updates intended only for Embedded XP and that
it will work with no possible problems. It's even worse than the
nutty lady, because in this case Microsoft has specifically advised
against it. And somehow you then try to morph that into nothing
bad will happen because MSFT doesn't want to screw with their
customers. Really? The .0000000000001% that would do what you're
proposing, possibly screwing themselves after MSFT told them not to,
and you're sure MSFT is not only going to give a damn, but take
steps to make sure it won't happen?
One user has already tried it and reported what happened. If
others want to use it, that's fine. But I sure wouldn't do it
based on the recommendation of the resident troll who's main
purpose here isn't contributing to the group, but making one stupid
OT post after another. And you want to talk about "divisive"?
Give us a break.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.