MS sends out a silent update to Windows Update

Topic

New Reply

	PATCH WATCH MS sends out a silent update to Windows Update
	By Susan Bradley It should come as a pleasant surprise that you’re unlikely to find any new patches this week in Windows Update. However, Windows Update is itself getting a silent update. Here are a few tips to ensure no hiccups during the process.

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/patch-watch/ms-sends-out-a-silent-update-to-windows-update/ (opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Recently, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced a complaint against the Wyndham hotel chain, accusing it of failing to protect guests using its Wi-Fi network.

The FTC complaint against Wyndham Hotels is about security of account information on corporate networks and has nothing to do with protecting guests’ Wi-Fi.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Just yesterday, we found a new problem with our WSUS server: two newly imaged Windows 7 client machines could not get updates from our WSUS server, but can get updates from Microsoft Update. On the one client where I saw the problem, it displayed an error code of 0x800B0001; running the Windows Update Reset FixIt made no difference on the client machine. Other existing Windows machines can check for updates against this WSUS server with no problems.

When I checked our WSUS server, I found no obvious problems, and no hint of this silent update. Until I ran Windows Update on the WSUS server itself and saw this message:

Install new Windows Update software
To check for updates, you must first install an update for Windows Update. Your automatic updating settings will not change.
To install the update, Windows Update will automatically close and re-open.
Install now

I’ve asked the WSUS server administrator to allow that to install and reboot the server, to see if it fixes the problem.

I sure wish Microsoft would give us a lot more details on this. That single KB article doesn’t explain much. Sande

Reply | Quote

No Joy on Windows XP, SP 3

As soon as I skimmed the table of contents, I jumped right to Susan’s article about the “silent” Windows Update, hoping to find information to help resolve it. Since I had just installed ESET, immediately before I first noticed the problem, while attempting to use Windows Update to download and install the latest update for Microsoft Security Essentials, I immediately uninstalled ESET altogether, and restarted.

Other than eliminating a DEP warning, this had no effect. I would fullow the prompts to update the engine, but I always wound up with a stalled instance of Internet Explorer 8. After I read the article, I followed the link to MSKB article 949104. As indicated, a FixIt popped up. However, my next attempt at Windows Update froze the entire computer, possibly because I didn’t close the web browser.

Following a hard reset (power off), I made another attempt, which yielded a message box captioned “IEXPLORE.EXE – Application Error,” containing the following message: The instruction at “0x05e90068” referenced memory at “0x05e90068”. The memory could not be “written”. I’ll be visiting the ISC blog next.

The Plot Thickens

A careful comparison of the chart in article 949104 reveals that every file on my machine is up to date. File versions, sizes, and modification dates agree 100%.

Alas, the article says nothing about registry keys affected by the update.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote

I checked for the update using the method you outlined. There is no trace of WU client version 7.6.7600.256. There is however a different
version: WU client version 7.5.7601.17514
This begs the question: has the update not occured, or is the version on my machine the bogus client?

Reply | Quote

That’s a good question. According to the historical information in the article, the immediately previous version was 7.4.7600.226. Further, every version mentioned in the hostory ias a 3 digit revision number, rather than the five digit number (17514) that you mentioned.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote

Hello TEXWizard. Thank you for your input.
Well, it isn’t a typo, I copy/paste’d it straight from the log. So I am making the assumption that it is bogus. If so, that would imply that any updates I am getting are also bogus. Incidentally when I went to look at the article, the “Fix it” window popped up. Did you also experience this, or is that part of the charade? I don’t know how to fix this, as there is no freestanding KB to manually install the patch, nor any means to remove the old one.

Reply | Quote

The silent update

I checked for the update using the method you outlined. There is no trace of WU client version 7.6.7600.256. There is however a different
version: WU client version 7.5.7601.17514
This begs the question: has the update not occured, or is the version on my machine the bogus client?

Silent Update – bogus client

Well, it isn’t a typo, I copy/paste’d it straight from the log. So I am making the assumption that it is bogus. If so, that would imply that any updates I am getting are also bogus.

That version number is genuine but at least a year old. I don’t think you’re getting bogus updates, which is an extremely theoretical possibility (just a mechanism used by Flamer to spread; I don’t believe there’s any evidence that any bogus windows updates have actually been received by anyone). You just don’t appear to have got the new version yet.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

That version number is genuine but at least a year old. I don’t think you’re getting bogus updates, which is an extremely theoretical possibility (just a mechanism used by Flamer to spread; I don’t believe there’s any evidence that any bogus windows updates have actually been received by anyone). You just don’t appear to have got the new version yet.

Bruce

I would certainly like to think you are correct. On the other hand, even if this was a genuine version, there have been updates since, prior to June 6 2012.
(See TXWizard’s earlier post) Why would I get stuck with last year’s version?

Reply | Quote

I would certainly like to think you are correct. On the other hand, even if this was a genuine version, there have been updates since, prior to June 6 2012.
(See TXWizard’s earlier post) Why would I get stuck with last year’s version?

There were no dates given for previous versions in the historical information he quoted, but the one he called the immediately preceding version is about three years old.

“For anyone else following this thread, the Version of the Windows Update Agent that is present when Windows 7 Service Pack 1 has been installed is V. 7.5.7601.17514″
[/I]Windows 7 Window Update won’t Update

Bruce

Reply | Quote

“For anyone else following this thread, the Version of the Windows Update Agent that is present when Windows 7 Service Pack 1 has been installed is V. 7.5.7601.17514″
[/I]Windows 7 Window Update won’t Update

Bruce

I guess this is how paranoia is born. Suzan’s article quotes one version, mine is different, but your information coincides, TXWizard has a different version again.
Life would be simpler if Microsoft would provide decent information, and if their “Fix-It” could provide accurate feedback.

Reply | Quote

According to Susan’s article, the “fixit” is supposed to pop up, as it did in my case, although this is the first time that I’ve had one do that. Anyway, it’s possible that the historical information in the article is incomplete. Also, I found another “fixit” KB article yesterday, also related to WU, that popped open the wizard on its own. The absence of manual instructions bothers me, too. If a solution isn’t forthcoming soon, I’m going to see whether I can pull the fixit apart; I found what appears to be its code in my %SystemRoot%Temp directory, and it’s a series of PowerShell scripts. (It’s easy enough for Microsoft to discover for themselves that PowerShell is installed on my machine.)

Meanwhile, it appears that my MSE installation may also be broken; I couldn’t update the signatures this morning.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote

The MSE update failure happened to me from time to time, but usually it completes if I try again later. By the way this morning’s update
was created at 4:04AM, Version 1.129.718.0 Of course if it is being updated by a rogue location, that is also of dubious value. Clicking on the Fix-It pop-up in the MS article resulted in a download that fixed nothing. The article itself does not deal with any cures to the problem itself, only the patch fixes. I complained about it on their feedback form, but without much hope.

Reply | Quote

MSE Update

Before replying to your message, I made another attempt to update, and succeeded. MSE reports my version number as 1.129.718.0 (same as yours), and says that it was created at 06/29/2012 @ 06:04 (+2:00 from the time you cited). However, if these times are adjusted from a UTC base, as is almost certainly the case, and you are in the Pacific Daylight time zone, my time would be later than yours by two hours.

Do-Nothing FixIt

Your experience mirrors mine almost exactly.

The absence of detail in the article is unusual, unless this reflects a recent change. Until recently, when I’ve visited a page that had a FixIt link, the article also contained manual instructions to do the same things that the FixIt did, along with instructions for rolling back the change.

IMO, barring the need for an out of cycle update, Microsoft has until 10 July 2012 to fix this. That should be plenty of time.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote

Can I install KB 2686509, if my XP was not an upgrade from Windows 98 or ME?
Thanks,
MarciaG

Reply | Quote

For any of you who read my posting above, here’s an update:

On our WSUS server, installing the offered Windows Update update, then restart, did not fix the problems.

And now we’ve found another way to trigger the problem on a client machine that is currently working correctly with our WSUS server: go to Microsoft Update and check for updates, When it tells you it has an update for Windows Update, accept it. Now this client will get the same 0x800B0001 error from our WSUS server, but can still get updates from Microsoft Update.

I’ve opened an incident with Microsoft on this. We’ll see what they have to say. Sande

Reply | Quote

A couple of questions re the .NET Framework updates for my XP home-user system:

1. Is it really necessary to update my video driver (NVIDIA GeForce 5200) before installing the .NET updates OK’d in this Patch Watch? I haven’t had any problem with the previous .NET updates that Susan has cleared to install.

2. Are KB 2604092, KB 2604010, and KB 2604111 OK to install? They are 05/08, MS12-035 updates. They were offerred at the same time and were discussed and put on wait in the same Patch Watch column item as KB 2656407 (MS12-034) that the current Patch Chart has as now OK to install.

3. What about the .NET updates from MS11-100, offerred in December 2011? These are old skips that were dropped from the Patch Chart. I have three of these still being offered in my MS Updates: KB’s 2656352, 2656353, and 2657424. They are updates to .NET 1.1 SP 1, .NET 2.0 SP 2, and .NET 3.5 SP 1, respectively.

Thanks for any guidance on these items.
MarciaG

Reply | Quote

Marcia,

I think what Susan intended to suggest is that you may need to update the video drivers if they are very old and you are having problems with .NET Framework updates.

Several years ago, up to about the time that version 4.0 shipped, I had some difficulties with .NET updates on Windows XP. Since then, they have all slid right into place. I’d say make an extra restore point, mark it “before updates,” and proceed.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote

Susan, you wrote in your column:

” If you’re not using ATI/AMD or Nvidia, consider buying a replacement video card to help with future .NET updates. Typically, the top video-card brands are better about updating their drivers.”

You need to add to your list Intel, which has been updating its video drivers for years to deal with the prerequisites for some Microsoft Updates. While users are at it, they may need to update Intel or other brands of Wireless Networking drivers and software, as these have also been named by Microsoft as potential problem sources with .NET and Windows Kernel Driver Updates from Microsoft.

Basically, any OEM System level driver older than about three years could need to be updated if certain MS Updates are being reoffered or are otherwise failing to install. The same OEM driver issues have prevented Windows Service Packs from installing properly in some computers. Microsoft has Upgrade Advisers for Service Packs, but none (that I know of) for .NET updates issues.

I get my driver updates from DriverMax, a free (or paid if you need a lot of drivers) third-party service which is legitimate. But even so, their drivers sometimes wreck things in Windows on some computers. At least their downloads are malware-free.

The bottom line is as always — if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Driver updates can go wrong, so only do them if you are having problems with updates and if there’s an indication (such as a KB reference or some such) that driver issues may indeed be at the roots of your updating issues. In any event, make both a System Restore Point and a Full Image System Backup before messing around with any driver updates.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

My Windows 7 (32-bit) netbook absolutely refuses to install the “silent update” to Microsoft Update Agent (7.6.7600.256).

My error number is always 8007371B, which is different from the ones Susan mentions. The pop-up fix-it (949104) doesn’t help. The system update preparation tool for Win7 (KB947821 from May 2012) finds absolutely no problems. I even tried a couple of fix-its offered for other error messages related to the silent update and then I tried restoring an image backup from an earlier time. Nothing helps.

I’m wondering if the problem could related to my hardware. This is a 32-bit Asus Eee PC 1015PN netbook, the model with an Intel Atom N570 processor and NVIDIA ION2 graphics chip.

Does anyone else get this error number or have any experience with the silent update on this netbook model?

Reply | Quote

My Windows 7 (32-bit) netbook absolutely refuses to install the “silent update” to Microsoft Update Agent (7.6.7600.256).

My error number is always 8007371B, which is different from the ones Susan mentions. The pop-up fix-it (949104) doesn’t help. The system update preparation tool for Win7 (KB947821 from May 2012) finds absolutely no problems. I even tried a couple of fix-its offered for other error messages related to the silent update and then I tried restoring an image backup from an earlier time. Nothing helps.

I’m wondering if the problem could related to my hardware. This is a 32-bit Asus Eee PC 1015PN netbook, the model with an Intel Atom N570 processor and NVIDIA ION2 graphics chip.

Does anyone else get this error number or have any experience with the silent update on this netbook model?

See my post above about NVidia driver updates. Always get these updates directly from the NVidia web site. They have a detection tool which will tell you what if any updates are available. I don’t think this will help in your case, but it costs nothing and might work.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

What is Susan’s recommendation re MS 12-035 .NET Framewok updates?

Still looking for advice re KB 2604092, 2604110, and 2604111. These are .NET Framework updates in MS12-035, from 5/8. Originally, Susan discussed and recommended wating on these updates when she recommened waiting on KB 2656407, the .NET Framework update covered in MS12-034. Susan now recommends installing KB 2656407. She doesn’t say anything about the MS12-035 .NET Framework updates, and they are not on the Patch List.

Reply | Quote

Order of installing old .NET Framework updates

When we go back and install old .NET Framework updates, does it matter in what order they are installed?

Reply | Quote

Old MS11-100 .NET Framework updates

Now that Susan recommends installing pre .NET 4 updates, what about ones from 2011? I’m still being offerred three, KB 2656352, 2656353, and 2657424. They are updates for .NET 1.1 SP1, .NET 2.0 SP2, and .NET 3.5 SP1. Way back when, Susan recommened skipping these and removed them from the Patch List. Should they remain burried or is it OK to install them now?

Reply | Quote

What is Susan’s recommendation re MS 12-035 .NET Framewok updates?

Still looking for advice re KB 2604092, 2604110, and 2604111. These are .NET Framework updates in MS12-035, from 5/8. Originally, Susan discussed and recommended wating on these updates when she recommened waiting on KB 2656407, the .NET Framework update covered in MS12-034. Susan now recommends installing KB 2656407. She doesn’t say anything about the MS12-035 .NET Framework updates, and they are not on the Patch List.

It gets more confusing every month, doesn’t it?

“What to do: If you’re running Windows XP, take a pass on KB 2604092 (MS12-035) until we’re sure there are no more problems with it.”

I guess we may never know if Susan is sure there are no more problems with it or not, which doesn’t quite meet the implied expectation.

Old MS11-100 .NET Framework updates

Now that Susan recommends installing pre .NET 4 updates, what about ones from 2011? I’m still being offered three, KB 2656352, 2656353, and 2657424. They are updates for .NET 1.1 SP1, .NET 2.0 SP2, and .NET 3.5 SP1. Way back when, Susan recommened skipping these and removed them from the Patch List. Should they remain burried or is it OK to install them now?

Susan has said that if she says Skip, she means Skip even if it drops off the Patch List.

I find it much better to install everything offered immediately, because trying to follow Susan’s recommendations is much too difficult and just not worth the supposed benefit.

In my opinion, dropping stuff off the Patch List after a totally arbitrary, undocumented time limit irrespective of circumstances completely destroys any potential usefulness.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

It gets more confusing every month, doesn’t it?

“What to do: If you’re running Windows XP, take a pass on KB 2604092 (MS12-035) until we’re sure there are no more problems with it.”

I guess we may never know if Susan is sure there are no more problems with it or not, which doesn’t quite meet the implied expectation.

Susan has said that if she says Skip, she means Skip even if it drops off the Patch List.

I find it much better to install everything offered immediately, because trying to follow Susan’s recommendations is much too difficult and just not worth the supposed benefit.

In my opinion, dropping stuff off the Patch List after a totally arbitrary, undocumented time limit irrespective of circumstances completely destroys any potential usefulness.

Bruce

Am I correct to interpret Susan’s recommendation still in effect to “take a pass” on KB 2604092 to apply also to the other patches that are covered in MS12-035, which were originally listed in her column item that covered KB 2604092? Thanks.

Reply | Quote

An update to my earlier post: Although Error 8007371B continues to prevent me from installing the new Windows Installer core/engine, I did find a workaround.

One can actually download and install newer updates MANUALLY, even though Windows Update refuses to work.

I go through Susan’s newsletter recommendations for what patches to apply. In the article text (or summary chart at the end of her article), I click the link that takes me to Microsoft’s info about each patch. On the web page, I click the link for IT Professional (not Home Users). Here I find the relevant patch for my system and download it manually.

I’m not sure it’s necessary, but I do this for only one patch at a time. I download and install it, reboot, and then repeat for the next patch.

This is work-intensive, but at least my machine is protected.

Reply | Quote

The simplest thing to do is take them in the order that Windows Update offers them, which is usually more or less the order in which they were released. Otherwise, you may end up installing a later update twice, because it got overwritten.

As for which order, between frameworks 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, etc., it doesn’t matter, because they install and run side by side. Each has its own folder in the file system and its own key in the Registry.

David A. Gray

Designing for the Ages, One Challenge at a Time

Reply | Quote