[Drizzt_Kueh]

Hi, guys.
As always, new set of updates from microsoft, new problems.
But, this time, i'm not deleting the cat files.

Here's the problem. I've sliptreamed (with hfslip v1.78) all the udpates corresponding to sp3 until today, but MU want to download the HF 956391. I've ran the hfnetchk. It indicates that the hf 956390 isn't installed too.
I've downloaded ie7, and the mencionated HF again, but with no luck.

I'm attaching the hfanswer.ini, the hfslip.log(both from the HFSLIP folder i've used), the newbin.txt (from HFSLIP_POST_getnewfiles_v3 plugin), and wu3.txt (from HFNETCHK).

Any ideas? Thx.

Attached File(s)

•  HFANSWER.INI (387bytes)
  Number of downloads: 36
•  HFSLIP.LOG.txt (6.59K)
  Number of downloads: 20
•  NEWBIN.TXT (4.72K)
  Number of downloads: 12
•  WU3.TXT (599bytes)
  Number of downloads: 17

This post has been edited by Drizzt_Kueh: 20 October 2008 - 01:12 PM

[cluberti]

This hotfix does not install any files, it just makes registry changes. However, it's branching information does seem to indicate that it does not check for any other hotfixes before installing.

Are you sure that you have the same IE files in your %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache folders? For example, do you have 7.x versions (say mshtml.dll) in \system32 and 6.x versions in \system32\dllcache (or vice-versa). I've seen the (failed) integration of Internet Explorer 7 (and some IE hotfixes) cause all kinds of "missing hotfix' grief post-build.

[Drizzt_Kueh]

Hi, cluberti.
About wich hotfix are you talking? Both?
I'm having problems with the hotfixes 956390 (HFNETCHK indicates that's not installed) and 956391 (Microsoft Update indicates that's not installed).
The versions of mshtml in the system32 and system32\dllcache folders are the same.

Edit 1:
HF 956391
I've solved adding a .reg file in the hfsvcpack, with the following content:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{0002E510-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400

Thx to redxii (http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...st&p=804276)

Waiting any ideas about the hf 956390 problem.

Edit 2:
I've tried to install the 956390 manually on the installed windows, finalize ok. But when i've ran the hfnetchk appear the same error.
I'm the only one with this problem?

This post has been edited by Drizzt_Kueh: 20 October 2008 - 01:30 PM

[P0TER]

Yes same problem, no solution so far. MU not want to update anything, so is it a big problem? It complains the mshtml.dll has a version which is HIGHER, so not much harm in that. Except for the shdocvw.dll which has a lower version it seems.

Patch NOT Installed MS08-058 956390
File C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.dll has a file version
[7.0.6000.20900] that is greater than what is expected
[6.0.2900.5659]. - File C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdocvw.dll has a file
version [6.0.2900.5512] that is less than what is expected
[6.0.2900.5659].

Hope anyone can help too!

[cluberti]

P0TER, on Oct 24 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Yes same problem, no solution so far. MU not want to update anything, so is it a big problem? It complains the mshtml.dll has a version which is HIGHER, so not much harm in that. Except for the shdocvw.dll which has a lower version it seems.

Patch NOT Installed MS08-058 956390
File C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.dll has a file version
[7.0.6000.20900] that is greater than what is expected
[6.0.2900.5659]. - File C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdocvw.dll has a file
version [6.0.2900.5512] that is less than what is expected
[6.0.2900.5659].

Hope anyone can help too!

It's saying that shdocvw.dll doesn't have the file version (5659) required to meet the installation of 956390 (it installs shdocvw .5659). However, it also finds that mshtml.dll is newer than the version in the hotfix - you should start to find out why mshtml.dll is 20900 (the QFE version from 956390), but shdocvw.dll is not 5659. Something during the build process is either replacing shdocvw.dll with the SP3 RTM version (.5512), or the update when integrated isn't updating all of the requisite files.

[P0TER]

Well, you are explaining my question I guess, but I already tried to find out why the versions are different and where the replacement error takes place, but i can't find it, hence the question.
Also, if the 20900 is according the update, then why it is complaining of a too high version?

[cluberti]

P0TER, on Oct 25 2008, 04:18 AM, said:

Well, you are explaining my question I guess, but I already tried to find out why the versions are different and where the replacement error takes place, but i can't find it, hence the question.
Also, if the 20900 is according the update, then why it is complaining of a too high version?

Because this is a QFE version, and this is a symptom of HFSLIP (the decision to install QFE binaries over GDR). Normally, on a regular build of Windows, you would have GDR binaries which are of a lower build number (you can see it if you look at the files updated by the hotfix on the Microsoft site, if you'd like). It's not an error, it's just stating that the binary is higher than the GDR version. I see you're not removing CAT files either, so may I suggest you try a new build, but using hfslip to install IE7 during GUILogon, and then a logon script to install IE7 hotfixes afterwards? Technically installing or slipstreaming IE7 and cumulative updates isn't supported by Microsoft precisely because the setup engine can cause breakage (like this) because you're laying IE7 down, and then immediately trying to update it's files which can cause mismatched .dll versions and failures to upgrade certain binaries, so I'm wondering if this is happening to you.

[Geej]

I do not have Kb956390 problem, only kb956391. From the tips given via registry tweak, it fixed kb956391 prompt by Microsoft update.

I observe in your HFANSWER.INI, there is no answer setting for IE7 slipsteaming. I had it set IE7SVCPACK=1
Perhaps you want to try this option?

[Drizzt_Kueh]

Geej, i've tried with that switch, but the problem remains.
Can you post your hfslip.log? Thank you!

[Geej]

Drizzt_Kueh, on Oct 29 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

Geej, i've tried with that switch, but the problem remains.
Can you post your hfslip.log? Thank you!

here. hope that helps

[seedofonan]

I'm struggling with the same problem with KB956390 from:
http://www.microsoft.com.nsatc.net/downloa...;displaylang=en

I've attached its log file. What I've found is that when I let WU run normally after XP x64 has finished installing, WU downloads a totally different set of files than are contained in the one above. What few dlls they do have in common are completely different versions. Specifically, all the SP2QFE/GDR dll versions from above are 6.3.3790.4357 built 2008/08/20 versus the latter 7.0.6000.16735 built 2008/10/04.

I'm going to try taking the latter version from SoftwareDistribution\Download and make a self-extracting exe to run during install. But what gives? I'd much rather use a MS download. Anyone know where I can get the right KB956390 for xp x64?

[James_A]

Is there any reason why the link shown in the last post should be pointing to Savvis Communications (nsatc.net) rather than the expected/usual link to microsoft.com ??

.

This post has been edited by James_A: 07 November 2008 - 12:01 PM

[Drizzt_Kueh]

I tried to install a clean XP SP3 VM, and then install all the updates available.
After that, i ran HFNETCHK, in that VM. It shows me the same error.

Why?, i ran the hfnetchk in several machines and i obtained the 956390 error in all of them.
Maybe a language problem (i'm using the spanish version of WinXP)? Or a problem with the HFNETCHK tool?
Can you, people, run the hfnetchk tool in your machines, and look if the hf 956390 is correctly installed? http://hfslip.org/support.html
Thank you.

[Geej]

Drizzt_Kueh, on Nov 8 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

Can you, people, run the hfnetchk tool in your machines, and look if the hf 956390 is correctly installed? http://hfslip.org/support.html
Thank you.

Found the following msg generated by WU1.txt

 
	* WINDOWS XP SP3

	Patch NOT Installed	 MS08-058	 956390
	File C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.dll has a file version 
	[7.0.6000.20900] that is greater than what is expected 
	[6.0.2900.5659]. - File C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdocvw.dll has a file 
	version [6.0.2900.3264] that is less than what is expected 
	[6.0.2900.5659]. 

KB956390 does not contain shdocvw.dll. It only has mshtml.dll

Hmm... Window updates never complains about missing kb956390... so I'm leaving it as it is

[Drizzt_Kueh]

I'm starting to believe that the error is a false positive. Maybe is a problem with the HFNETCHK tool.
Anyone run the hfnetchk without errors?

[cluberti]

Drizzt_Kueh, on Nov 8 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

I'm starting to believe that the error is a false positive. Maybe is a problem with the HFNETCHK tool.
Anyone run the hfnetchk without errors?

I'm not sure that's the case - note that the binary versions it's checking against are 6.x versions (the reported greater than/less than versions), yet IE7 is installed. This would indicate a failure of a complete IE7 install rather than a false-positive. The machine still thinks it's running IE6, not IE7, it would seem.

[Drizzt_Kueh]

The system have mshtml.dll 7.x version, and seems to be correct. It's because the internet explorer version installed is 7.0. The HFSNETCHK is expecting the 6.x version, not the system.
Anyone can run the hfnetchk tool in a clear (not hfsliped) installation?

[cluberti]

If that was the case, hfnetchk would report all XP systems with IE7 as missing the hotfix. That's just silly, hfnetchk isn't at fault, the install of IE7 is.

[James_A]

Well that's nowhere near the full story, because the following statement is true:

Geej, on Nov 8 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

KB956390 does not contain shdocvw.dll. It only has mshtml.dll

provided you qualify it, by adding the words "for IE7".

KB956390 contains a SP2QFE branch and a SP2GDR branch. There is NO SP3 branch.

Both branches have 32 files. Neither branch has shdocvw.dll in it.

.

[cluberti]

The SP2QFE branch will install on SP3, as will the SP2GDR branch. The branch is determined by the AnalyzeForBranching phase of setup, and even on SP3 systems, certain hotfixes (mostly IE) are still being built from the SP2xxx branches for now.