• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yzöwl

Security Hotfix Checker results

15 posts in this topic

Can someone explain what we're supposed to be looking for in these results, and why lines 12-15 of WU.txt aren't what I expected.

This is the first time I've ran a HFSLIP ver since January, and I've never bothered with HFNetChk before, just relied on Windows Update.

Thanks

WU.zip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, you have an XP SP1 hotfix. Get the correct version of 904706 from Tomcat's site.

Greater than expected and invalid checksums can be safely ignored. Use the -nosum switch to get hfnetchk to ignore checksums.

As for the MS04-041 issue, I have no idea,

the_guy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS04-041 (Q885836) is a strange one. That line should've been added into the registry by the installation INF. That's done from a "Save.Reg.For.Uninstall" section which is taken care of by HFSLIP (for Windows XP). Is that line present if you go look for it in the Registry Editor?

MPSB-0507 (Q913433)...

This came in with the previous round of hotfixes. I thought I covered that (silent install from SVCPACK) but apparantly not. Nobody complained so I didn't bother to test it first hand (I don't work with Flash 5 or 6). I guess everyone either installs Flash 7 or 8 by hand later on, uses a silent installer of their own or has HFSLIP slipstream the latest OCX file. I'll do some testing to see if the switches I'm using are all correct.

Edited by Tomcat76
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too worried about the flash patch for now, as you say, I will likely be updating it eventually.

the_guy thanks for the heads up on the 904706, I've no idea how that happened, I have now downloaded it from here. I didn't know that TC was mirroring updates, but I prefer to get them from MS anyhow.

Here is the particular registry branch, let me know what you think!

updates.zip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yzöwl, just a quick note. Since you have KB905474 in HF, you don't need LegitCheckControl.cab in your HFCABS folder (the hotfix contains the DLL).

By the way, how fast is your processor? I can't believe you can run HFSLIP in only 7 minutes!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a standard Athlon XP…

Here are the files, from my new version with the replaced incorrect file I had previously

<Edit>

Yes, as far as I'm concerned the WGA Notify thing is not a critical update, it was only included for these tests. I just didn't remove the cab so that I don't forget to put it back later.

</Edit>

All3.zip

Edited by Yzöwl
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomcat doesn't mirror updates. I was just saying where to get the microsoft link from.

HFNetChk complains about the 913433 issue even if you install flash 8.

the_guy

Edited by the_guy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yzöwl

I'm not mirroring the updates; I'm just "hotlinking" to those which aren't WGA-protected (although you can still go to the hotfix's download page as well as the relevant security article page).

I see the case with KB885836 more clearly now. That hotfix does create the key but not the value that HfNetChk is looking for. I'll ask TommyP if HFSLIP should work around this to satisfy HfNetChk, though it is an error on HfNetChk's part.

HFNetChk complains about the 913433 issue even if you install flash 8.
Thanks for that. I'll just leave the code that handles KB913433 as is, then.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not make hfslip fix hfnetchk mistakes (yes they make mistakes). The aforementioned update was an issue for quite some time. FYI, I use hfnetchk as a guide to see if the binaries are up to snuff. WindowsUpdate does a great job at check registry values. The MSBLA is most thorough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSBLA? I think I like that... :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, although not directly on subject, could you explain a couple of these entries captured from the running batch file

WindowsXP-KB896428-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\telnet.exe
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\telnet.exe
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB898461-x86-ENU.exe
0 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB899587-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\kerberos.dll
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\kerberos.dll
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB899589-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\nwwks.dll
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\nwwks.dll
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB899591-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\rdpwd.sys
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\rdpwd.sys
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB900485-v2-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\aec.sys
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\aec.sys
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB900725-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\shell32.dll
TEMP\SP2GDR\winsrv.dll
TEMP\SP2GDR\linkinfo.dll
TEMP\SP2GDR\shlwapi.dll
4 File(s) copied
TEMP\shell32.dll
TEMP\winsrv.dll
TEMP\linkinfo.dll
TEMP\shlwapi.dll
4 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB901017-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\cdosys.dll
1 File(s) copied
TEMP\cdosys.dll
1 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB901190-x86-ENU.exe
0 File(s) copied
TEMP\SP2GDR\LANG\imekr61.ime
1 File(s) copied
0 File(s) copied

WindowsXP-KB901214-x86-ENU.exe
TEMP\SP2GDR\mscms.dll
TEMP\SP2GDR\icm32.dll
2 File(s) copied
TEMP\mscms.dll
TEMP\icm32.dll
2 File(s) copied

Specifically sections with lines 7-8 and lines 52-56

Thanks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's either an old hotfix with binaries that are old -or- it may be a hotfix with extra files to be slipstreamed. By extra, I mean it's files that aren't part of the source\i386 folder. In any event, those messages can be ignored.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this help explain

contents of WindowsXP-KB898461-x86-ENU
_sfx_.dll
_sfx_0000._p
_sfx_0001._p
_sfx_0002._p
_sfx_0003._p
_sfx_0004._p
_sfx_0005._p
_sfx_0006._p
_sfx_0007._p
_sfx_0008._p
_sfx_0009._p
_sfx_0010._p
_sfx_0011._p
_sfx_0012._p
_sfx_manifest_

contents of WindowsXP-KB901190-x86-ENU
_sfx_.dll
_sfx_0000._p
_sfx_0001._p
_sfx_0002._p
_sfx_0003._p
_sfx_0004._p
_sfx_0005._p
_sfx_0006._p
_sfx_0007._p
_sfx_0008._p
_sfx_0009._p
_sfx_0010._p
_sfx_0011._p
_sfx_0012._p
_sfx_0013._p
_sfx_0014._p
_sfx_0015._p
_sfx_manifest_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain what?

Most Type 1 hotfixes can only be extracted like this:

hotfix.exe /Q /X:destdir

Example:

MD KB898461

WindowsXP-KB898461-x86-ENU.exe /Q /X:KB898461

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.