[Ambassador]

I noticed that the MSSECURE.XML file used by HFNETCHK (in combination with Tomcat's HFNETCHK.CMD and WGET) are dated August 11 2009, so they are fairly recent. Considering that the support of those XML files was apparently ending in 2007, is HFNETCHK still a viable way to check for new updates, other than the the slow MS RSS feeds or the excellent lists on FDV's website?

This post has been edited by Ambassador: 27 August 2009 - 02:42 PM

[tommyp]

Hardly an HFSLIP topic, but I have no probs with hfnetchk on my 2k boxes. I think there are issues when using it for ie7 or ie8 on xp. Ymmv though. Perhaps it's better to ask on shavlik's website instead? You could always use the microsoft baseline analyzer instead (but it's not a cmd line program).

[Ambassador]

I was referring more in relation to FDV's fileset.

Quote

Perhaps it's better to ask on shavlik's website instead?

Unfortunately no. The posts I've seen pretty much give you the "you should upgrade" routine.

Quote

You could always use the baseline analyzer instead

I would if it didn't have a billion dependencies, including IE.

Quote

but it's not a cmd line program

It actually does come with a command line version... with the same requirements as the GUI.

The reason I ask about HFNETCHK is that I'm trying to figure out an WU alternative for FDV to maybe include in his fileset since he decided not to add WU Agent 3 compatibility (which is fine IMAO; my experiences with it have never been positive). If I could make a easy frontend for HFNETCHK for picky users, that would be great, but that depends on whether or not HFNETCHK is viable for the future, in which case a completely new implementation would have to created.

[tommyp]

I see where you're coming from now. Have you tested it w/fdv's fileset? If it's a dependancy with the wu 3 engine, what files are the wu3 engine? Maybe you can keep those wu3 engine in the same directory as the hfnetchk?

FWIW, the cmdline version works fine with my stripped to he!! (hfcleanup) 2k boxes. I use the ie6 core but no IE, I suppose there's lots of other stuff removed as well.

[Ambassador]

Quote

Have you tested it w/fdv's fileset?

I hope to as soon as next week. My schedule has been increasingly busy of late.

Quote

If it's a dependency with the wu 3 engine, what files are the wu3 engine? Maybe you can keep those wu3 engine in the same directory as the hfnetchk?

Perhaps, but I think the GUI would still be unusable, since it looks and acts suspiciously like a webpage... I'll post the requirements of MBSA 2.0.1 as soon as I have them (of course MS includes them with the program AFTER you install them, not on the web-page).

Quote

Maybe you can keep those wu3 engine in the same directory as the hfnetchk?

Unfortunately, it seems that the XML files used are completely different from the mssecure.cab. I actually found the CAB files (with appropriate .XML files in them) for MBSA 2.0.1. As for whether or not the engine files would work with MBSA 2.0.1, well, its possible.

Quote

FWIW, the cmdline version works fine with my stripped to he!! (hfcleanup) 2k boxes. I use the ie6 core but no IE, I suppose there's lots of other stuff removed as well.

Are you referring to the command line version of MBSA or are you refering to HFNETCHK? If it is MBSA, do you have WU3 installed? If it is HFNETCHK, then that makes sense. But I am afraid that the XML file may be becoming increasing crippled:

----------------------------

		* WINDOWS XP SP3

		Information
		All necessary hotfixes have been applied.

		* INTERNET EXPLORER 6 SP3

		Information
		There are no entries for Internet Explorer 6 SP3 in the XML file.

If HFNETCHK isn't viable, then my other idea would be to use your Windows 2000 hotfix list as some sort of source file (like mssecure.xml) for a new WU-alternatve, since it is frequently updated and maintained (even moreso than mssecure.xml it seems ), and it has non-essential updates listed as well.

This post has been edited by Ambassador: 28 August 2009 - 08:16 AM

[tommyp]

I do not use MSBLA. The commandline hfnetchk is still usable for me and it suits my needs just nicely. It has been working flawless for me for the past 3 or 4 years. I not recall that the commandline hfnetck uses any other built in utilities/services other than the cab extractor, but I could be wrong. You should test it out on a fdv/2k and report your findings.

[Martin H]

hfnetchk works fine on a FDV'ed/hfcleanup'ed install and dosen't show any missing updates for removed components.

The bad thing is that it dosen't support specific components, like e.g. dx, oe and newer versions of specific components...

[Ambassador]

I've discovered a possible better alternative to HFNETCHK called WuInstall that doesn't seem to require Windows Update-related services. Has anybody tried it already?

[hs2n]

Ambassador, on 22 October 2009 - 01:42 PM, said:

I've discovered a possible better alternative to HFNETCHK called WuInstall that doesn't seem to require Windows Update-related services. Has anybody tried it already?

The link has changed ... try http://www.wuinstall.com instead.

This post has been edited by hs2n: 14 December 2010 - 04:17 PM