|
This one has (so far) stumped folks over at the Microsoft "Community".
One of my Windows 10 boxes (x64, always updated, so whatever the latest build is) will not let me log in to any programs that reach out to login.live.com for authentication.
But only the desktop programs or programs that don't have the authentication built in. The "Store" programs log in with no problem, as does the OS itself. And online things work fine, like signing in to MSDN or whatever.
Running a desktop program, all I get is some variation of Can't reach that page or Something went wrong or Connection closed, depending on how the program is set up.
So...I can't log in to Visual Studio or TFS, I can't log in to desktop Skype, I can't log in to OneDrive, etc etc etc.
Except, and this is the killer, if I have Fiddler running and logging the traffic, all of the programs work just fine.
A) What kind of sense does it make to only allow login if there's a spy on the line?
B) Fiddler doesn't log anything "wrong" or even iffy. Just normal web requests and responses. (And a LOT of HTTP and HTML formatting errors like expecting X number bytes but receive 0, or unclosed quotations)
None of the usual diagnostics like sfc or dism pick up anything, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Random guess: have you checked whether "Use TLS 1.0 / 1.1 / 1.2" is ticked in the "Advanced" page of your IE settings?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Probably. I'm pretty sure I checked that somewhere along the line. I know for sure I never unchecked them for any reason. :p
|
|
|
|
|
Any PAC files[^] on your network? Or any chance you could be affected by the WPAD name collision vulnerability[^]?
If Fiddler's causing a "Schrödinger's Bug", you might need to get down and dirty with Wireshark[^] to track the problem down.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure nothing of a proxy nature appears anywhere in my systems. I'll double check, and check the modem/router, too, to make sure they haven't "improved" it without telling me.
Still, since it's just this one computer with the problem, it shouldn't be the network. (An identical Win10 box doesn't have any issues.)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: What kind of sense does it make to only allow login if there's a spy on the line?
We all behave better when we know someone is watching. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried disabling the firewall and rebooting with it disabled? One of the people at work ran into an issue on Win7 where that was the only way to fix it. Something was preventing a program from binding to a socket that it needed, even though nobody was using it or had it reserved via the registry keys. It was some sort of new issue -- everything has been working fine for them, then poof, suddenly it stopped working fine.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that is something I haven't looked at. Ditto on the everything working fine, then not.
Thanks. We'll see what happens when I get home. 
edit: Nope. Didn't fix it. 
modified 2-Jun-16 8:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I would check is potential DNS problem. Check the contents of your hosts file for example.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
Even with an empty HOSTS file, it does it. And it uses the same DNS servers as the other machine that works. I've done the whole \flushdns thing, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uninstall Fiddler and - this is important - WinPCap. I bet you've found an incompatibility.
|
|
|
|
|
You mention Skype...Don't they somehow hijack browser content? (to inject call tags) Could it be a problem with the Skype account? I've seen stranger things... Good luck!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know about that, but...there are here versions of Skype (that I have, anyway). Two "native" Win10 versions, Skype for Business, and Skype Video -- both of which I have no problem logging in to, and the "desktop" version of Skype, which uses the reach out and touch live.com login.
|
|
|
|
|
is to receive a snack upside the head.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'd just send them to boarding school but heh...
|
|
|
|
|
Food for thought, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
If you order tacos but get tortilla chips, is it nacho lucky day?
Early today, I've got to take herself to the physioterrorist soon
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I toldya  Donut joke about food!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try tamale
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
You should burrito that one in the backyard!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
How to tell how old a map is: xkcd: Map Age Guide[^]
I love the whole "Is it trying to bite you?" branch... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I love the "How sure are you this map is in English"?
|
|
|
|
|
While I've learned to accept the mystery down-voter who awards me -16 points from time to time, often after the OP has accepted my response as "the answer," in QA, here  ...
I am surprised, indeed, by what appears to be someone(s) going through many of my recent QA posts and up-voting them.
In case this is one of you (gentle readers), please keep in mind that the criteria I think are valid for voting (up, or, down) for a QA reply is: the technical quality of the solution; its relevance to the OP's concerns; and its over-all usefulness. I would hope that the criteria used by the mystery up-voter(s) are similar.
But, even though I consider myself (attempting to stay) outside the "rep game," I am not complaining
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
