Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Windows Updates

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
759 replies to this topic

#26
turdflinger

turdflinger

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts

turdflinger - I'd prefer not to include other info such as you mentioned about IIS. It's not my intent to offer all scenerios of who installs what and what hotfixes are required for their system. It's already a pita with the various flavors of WMP and IE. In the case of the IIS update you mention, if someone has their winnt.sif file set up to install IIS, then the latest IIS will be installed. If the option is turned off, then it won't install, but the latest fileset still resides on the installation CD. The severity rating will remain as what MSFT says. It's not my call to redefine how MSFT rates their OS software.

spamkonto1 - Thanks for the tips. 911564 removed, but it appears that package installer 893803 is not part of the XPSP3, or at least that's what it says at KB946480. The legitcheckontrol.cab is periodically updated. It's good to keep the latest version there. I don't know how to answer your Q if it's an IE7 thing or not. I don't use IE7 or XP. I dislike both.

thanks tommyp, i agree pita and that makes sense enough to me!

Per, 893803:
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 2000 Service Pack 4; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP; Windows XP Service Pack 1; Windows XP Service Pack 2
It doesn't list XPsp3 though...


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
Lions

Lions

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
Hi all,

I would give my little contribution to keep updated Windows 2000 list:

1) KB926121 (Remote Installation Services - RIS) is an optional component. If RIS is not installed, the update gives an error message...

2) KB926122 has been replaced by KB934484 (http://www.microsoft...n/MS08-003.mspx),
wich has been replaced by KB949014 (http://www.microsoft...n/ms08-035.mspx).
So, only KB949014 (currently missing) should be included in the list.

3) KB937894 has been replaced by KB951071 (http://www.microsoft...n/MS08-065.mspx)

4) KB941569 is listed twice.

5) Security and optional updates missing from the list:
-KB941644 (http://www.microsoft...n/ms08-001.mspx)
-KB950760 (http://www.microsoft...n/MS08-032.mspx), NOT replaced by KB9353839
-KB953839 (http://www.microsoft...ory/953839.mspx)
-KB957280 (http://www.microsoft...n/MS08-060.mspx)
-WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB917275-Client-XXX-x86.EXE (http://support.micro...kb/917275/en-us)

Ciao :hello:

#28
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks for the contribution Lions. I'll try to knock these issues down one by one.
1. I don't get an error when slipstreaming 926121.
2. This is the infamous active directory hotfix. The overall hotfix is actually 957280.
3. List updated. Thanks!
4. Agreed, 941569 is listed twice. It's needed if you install codecs only. It's also included if you want to slipstream WMP9. A dynamic hotfix list would be better suited, but I'm not an HTML coder.
5. 941644 updates tcpip.sys. There is already a hotfix that updates this file (941644 is superceded).
950760 & 953839 are those infamous activex kill bits hotfixes. These two updates do not appear for me.
957280. See answer #2.
WindowsRights 917275. I'll reluctantly add this one to the list. I haven't seen the need to use this update yet.
Posted Image

#29
dreaMMar

dreaMMar
  • Member
  • 4 posts
Hi All,

Yesterday I installed a SP3 slipstreamed XP (Dutch), and installed IE7.
Then visited windows update, these are sugested updates:

892130
898461
890830
952069
954600
956802
958215
955839
955069
954459
957097
958644
954211
956391
956803
956841
957095
905474
938464
938127
951066
946648
952954
950974
952287
951978
951698
951376
950762
923789

So it looks like you don't need 893803, 950760 & 951748...

Merry Christmas Everyone

#30
turdflinger

turdflinger

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts

So it looks like you don't need 893803, 950760 & 951748...

These are my results as well.
There are no bulletins replaced for WinXPsp3 regarding 950760 & 951748. 893803 doesn't list Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3).
I wonder if this has anything to do with it. Or, it might be a bug in the WUA (which would affect MBSA 2.1 as well).

Is your slipstreamed xpsp3 using an RTM or VLK version?

tf

#31
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
Yeah, i recently updated my sisters new PC which had WinXP-SP3 on(i tried to convince her to change to 2k, but couldn't :)), anyway, when i followed Tommy's list and then came to KB893803v2, then i could see that it didn't installed right from the batchfile i had made and when i then tried to install it manually, then a prompt stated that the SP level on the system(i.e. SP3) wasen't supported for that update...

Note, this wasen't a slipstream, though... Just a FYI... :)

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image


#32
turdflinger

turdflinger

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts
FWIW, I just finished evaluating a Windows XP SP2 machine (not slipstreamed) which hadn't been upgraded in about a year.
Checking Windows Update showed 893803, 950760 and 951748 as being needed (plus a few others).
Instead of getting all the updates, I went ahead and upgraded the machine to SP3.
I checked Windows Update and 893803, 950760 and 951748 weren't offered.

I tried installing 951748 against SP3 too and it installed without issue. It seems to me this one should probably be included in a slipstream process regardless of what WUA and MBSA 2.1 indicate (or don't indicate as the case may be).

tf

Edited by turdflinger, 18 December 2008 - 12:48 AM.


#33
bfc_xxx

bfc_xxx

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 158 posts
The WindowsXP-KB915865-v11-x86-ENU.exe points to Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe. The correct I think is Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe
regards

#34
tfoutfou

tfoutfou

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts

The WindowsXP-KB915865-v11-x86-ENU.exe points to Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe. The correct I think is Windows-en-US-KB943729.exe
regards


same question here !

the description , the date and the link are all pointing to KB943729 but only the filename is wrong !

some copy/paste error ?

thanks

#35
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
yes, it was a copy/paste error. I'll send the new version to FDV for hosting. The hotfix lists are pretty much generated by a spreadsheet. I have all the KB numbers and MS article numbers. From there, I use some concatenate functions to generate the HTML code. So it's just a copy/paste thing at this point. I feel it's 99% there. But with any software, there is always room for improvement.

Merry Christmas.
Posted Image

#36
willydejoe1234

willydejoe1234

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
special.reg the continued need for ActiveX Killbits(kb956391)in hfsvcpack folder?
thanks

Edited by willydejoe1234, 26 December 2008 - 07:56 PM.


#37
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Are you using the latest beta? The beta should add in that "fix." What's the reg file you need to use?
Posted Image

#38
willydejoe1234

willydejoe1234

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
in the latest beta everything is fixed either ecepcion of adding an activex killbits .....
adding one. reg published here if the update fixes
compile everything again to see if you ask me ActiveX killbits in Windows Update

#39
willydejoe1234

willydejoe1234

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
I worked the whole process again and still the asking kb956391 update I have not made any modification of the process and I have used the latest beta of hfslip......
but if we put this. reg in hfsvcpack not ask me to update the ActiveX killbits:


Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

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


I am also a doubt ... because it is blocked windows installer 4.5 in the latest versions of hfslip? Is it a problem caused by this update? Solve WindowsXP-KB958655-x86-ENU.exe this problem?

Edited by willydejoe1234, 27 December 2008 - 07:08 PM.


#40
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
willydejoe1234 - HFSLIP already addresses this activex issue. Perhaps you have another file that is reversing this fix?
Posted Image

#41
willydejoe1234

willydejoe1234

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
this is my compilation

Attached Files



#42
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Please keep this thread on topic for windows update list corrections.

It may be worthwhile to edit your hfslip.ini file to delete the NoKillBits line. Also, it maybe worthwhile for you to compare your hotfix list from what is presented on the xp hotfix page. Please start a new thread if you run into probs. :)

Edited by tommyp, 28 December 2008 - 12:28 PM.

Posted Image

#43
willydejoe1234

willydejoe1234

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
I have compiled this whole process .reg and everything went perfect ... I think you should put on the page updates for XP SP3 ..... I do not know that I have HFANSWER.INI anything about killbits
so that other users know ....
any suggestions regarding my question on the Windows Installer 4.5?
thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.
I feel much painful English

Edited by willydejoe1234, 28 December 2008 - 12:42 PM.


#44
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
Hi Tommy :)

Thank you so much for making such a great update list, i really appreciate your efforts, mate :thumbup

I think that the XML3 update 'Windows2000-KB955069-x86-ENU.EXE', shouldn't be listed as 'Optional' under it's 'Notes' section...

(If i'm wrong then i apologise).

Very minor issue, but just thought that i would report it...

Thank's again, mate :)

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image


#45
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks Martin H. It's a yes and no situation. The entire msxml "block" is optional. If you slipstream msxml, then it's critical. If you don't slipstream msxml then you don't need it. So you're right, it's optional. However, I take the ratings from MSFT's security bulletin (MSxx-yyy).
Posted Image

#46
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
Thank's for your reply, mate :)

Anyway, sorry for my bad wording maybe, but what i meant was that i believe that XML3 is default in Win2k-SP4, and hence, XML3 updates wouldn't be 'Optional' then...

On Tomcat's old list, then when you haven't selected any of the optional XML installers, then the 'HF' section still lists this update:

Windows2000-KB936021-x86-ENU.EXE S MS07-042 Vulnerability in MSXML3

And that update has now been replaced by the XML3 update on your new list i.e. 'Windows2000-KB955069-x86-ENU.EXE'.

Again, if i'm wrong, then i'm really sorry for wasting your time with my nonsence...


CU, Martin.

Edit: I found this on wikipedia's MSXML page:

Windows 2000 SP4 also ships with MSXML 3.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSXML

Edited by Martin H, 29 December 2008 - 04:41 PM.

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image


#47
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
Hi Tommy :)

Sorry for keeping bothering you, but when you have the time/motivation, then could you please tell me if you disagree with what i said above?

Thanks in advance.

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image


#48
tommyp

tommyp

    MSFN Addict

  • Developer
  • 1,680 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I'll move the MSXML 3 hotfixes out of the optional and in the "upper" list. The severity rating that is presented will still be what MSFT says.
Posted Image

#49
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
Thanks alot for your reply, mate :)

Btw, it's just 1 hotfix and i've never disagreed with your severity ratings...

Thanks again, mate :)

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image


#50
Martin H

Martin H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • OS:none specified
@Tommy:

When using your Win2k list, then hfnetchk/qfecheck shows no missing patches/problems, but on WU, then except the obvious ones that i didn't include, then states that i'm missing:
The first one is an error since it's for 2K-Server, but the next one seems legit to me:

When downloading and unpacking it, then it contains one updated binary: vgx.dll v5.0.3854.2500, and the inf copies/overwrites it into '%programfiles%\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\VGX\', and the old vgx.dll on the ISO is v5.0.3014.1003

Again, if i'm wrong, then i'm really sorry for the bother...

Edit: Btw, i know that KB938127 is replaced on Win2k with IE6-SP1, but not for Win2k IE5-SP4...

Edited by Martin H, 03 January 2009 - 08:42 PM.

/* Moved to Linux - Thanks for a nice stay all! */
Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN