News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more. Tech help. No bull. We're community supported by donations from our Plus Members, and proud of it
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • iudith.m

    Forum Replies Created

    Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
    • Author
      Posts
    • in reply to: Born: Windows Defender isn’t getting updates #201764

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      @rdrguy,
      Thank you so much for the detailed explanation.

      In the meantime, I found a similar though older web page discussing MSE updates
      https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect_updating-windows_other/mse-definitionssignatures-update-faq/74e507b8-f6da-4eca-8ce7-d1aca7d3f1ba

      I have a supposition that WD and MSE are “updating themselves” in a similar way,
      and, if this is true, this could explain why it happens than we see an “older” version
      throughout a 24 hours period.

      What worried me more was why on one of the machines the WU attempted a second time to install the failed update, while on the other machine it DID NOT do this.

      My only possible guess is that, the machine having just returned from sleep,
      the WD was able to “update itself” faster than the WU acted, and then the (slower) WU already detected the newer version of the WD being in place, when attempting to install the older one, and this caused the failure and the non-repeated attempt to install.

      The following web page
      https://johnkoerner.com/install/windows-installer-error-codes/
      seems to confirm that this is indeed the reason for the 80070666 installation error.

      But, in such a case, it “leaves open” the question of why did this error also occur
      on the LAPTOP on a first attempt by WU to install 1.271.442.0., followed by successfully installing it also by WU, 2 hours later.
      This would suggest that the first failed installation, with the SAME error code of 80070666,
      did have here a different reason.

      In other words, what worries me more is the inconsistent behavior of WU, versus the apparently
      more consistent behavior of WD self-update (which probably also uses some of the WU “pipe” components).

      Unfortunately, the WD gui only shows when was the current signature version released,
      but not when was it installed on the local machine and/or whether the installation was performed
      by WD itself or by the WU.

      My 3-rd party AV probably simply looks at the failed update, and still warns
      that OS updates are available, though it probably intends to warn about the newer
      1.271.586.0., which was already updated by WD itself …

      The problem here is that there is no place to be considered the “single point of truth”,
      instead the different places show different information, creating confusion …

      Thanks a lot & Have a nice weekend 🙂
      Iudith

      Edit to remove HTML

    • in reply to: Born: Windows Defender isn’t getting updates #201729

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello All,
      I just found this thread while searching for some explanation for the “666” error.

      Two things that are NOT clear to me:
      1. Is WD updating its definitions also automatically, WITHOUT relying on WU ?
      2. Which of them (or both ?) do update the Engine and/or the Client version ?

      I have 3 Win7 Pro 64 machines, and I see something strange:

      1. One machine (PC)  installed successfully 1.271.442.0 on July 4, through WU.
      The WD gui shows last definition 1.271.442.0  (engine 1.1.15000.2)

      2. The second machine (LAPTOP) also installed 1.271.442.0 on July 4, through WU,
      but after it performed 2 attempts, about 2 hours apart, and the first attempt failed
      with the “666” error, while the second one succeeded.
      The WD gui also shows last definition 1.271.442.0  (engine 1.1.15000.2)

      3. The third machine (PC), which was on sleep on July4-5, attempted to install
      1.271.442.0 on July 6, through WU but failed with the “666” error.
      But the WD GUI shows last definition as 1.271.586.0  (engine 1.1.15000.2),
      which is indeed the newest version also shown on the MS page.
      And the update to this version happened entirely automatically on July 6.
      When I press “Check for Updates” on the WD GUI it shows that there are no updates
      available or needed.
      Also, WU does NOT offer the same 1.271.442.0 a second time, though it failed on the first      attempt to install.

      I have found some web posts related to MSE which describe the error “80070666”
      as saying “Update failed because a newer version or product already exists”.

      This seems to be logical for my 3rd PC, which does indeed have a newer version of the
      WD definition (1.271.586.0 vs 1.271.442.0), but seems to be NOT logical for the Laptop,
      which did attempt a second installation after the first one failed with this error.

      I am also using a 3rd party AV (ESET NOD), however WD is still enabled and seems to not cause any problems.

      Can anybody share some light upon this, mainly based on my two questions at the beginning of this post ?

      Thanks a lot in advance & Best Regards,
      Iudith

       

    • in reply to: Windows update not offering KB4088881 #180999

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello Mr.Brian

      Thanks a lot, now I found it here: https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree

      If already at this point, maybe you can enlighten my knowledge a little bit:

      Once I remember that I installed Acronis (for the 30 days test), still on an old XP machine,

      and it was all nice, but what I didn’t like about it was that it installed a lot of services that were all supposed to run on startup. I don’t exactly like this behavior, and at that time, my overall OS knowledge was much “less extended” than it is today …

      ( Fortunately, in those times, there were much less Microsoft bugs around, that force you to learn “at the wrong moment” !!!
      Yes, that’s true !!! )

      So, in principle, I would like a backup software that only runs all its components (including services) on demand, or, at least allow to easily customize this behavior, without “breaking the functionality”.

      High chances are that I will create a full backup image only once, because I really refrain from performing any drastic changes on my machine, except for installation of a few “small” nice programs here and there, well known and already well experienced,
      and they never broke anything on any of my machines.

      In rest, I will probably continue with my periodic document only backup.

      Back to Microsoft …
      I really wonder how come that a company can be so “widespread” for such a long time, and still having so many bugs, even in products that already work for so many years …

      Yes, the OS is a complicated animal, or at least it looks like that to us, “the mere mortals” …

      But exactly because this, they should apply working standards by which nothing is ever released to the user community without topmost thorough checking and certification, even if reacting to a specific security thread (like the recent one) might take many months !

      They should check each and every OS change, however minor, on any hardware that is certified for their OS or other software.

      I think that the whole world has become a little too paranoid regarding all the security issues …

      The bottom line with security issues, as underlined by ALL the professional security instructors with each occasion is that, ultimately, all the security problems arise only when the user performs specific actions without being careful enough.
      It is not at all that simple as “somebody just breaks into my machine whenever he wants and steals my data” !

      These days people are afraid even of having their Facebook data leaking out …
      though, it is entirely up to them what info do they share at all !

      Fact is that many companies are making a lot of money out of these security issues and other ones (Microsoft included) also want money …

      I worked many years on Mainframe computers (Digital VMS) and when I first started to use Windows I could not understand at all how is it possible that different programs (sometimes from different vendors) are able to “overwrite” each other’s memory stacks ….

      Why isn’t the OS itself, including ALL its files, protected in such a way that no other program, ever, except for Microsoft’s own programs could be able to touch those files
      in any way ?

      I honestly believe that the Windows users world-wide community is “far too permissive” with all what Microsoft is doing  and with the way that they do it !

      For example, I see no reason in the world for any user to be forced to upgrade his OS, MSOffice, or anything else to a later version that the one he prefers to use, regardless of all these “security threats” that Microsoft always threatens with them …

      Also, in the recent case of many machines failing after installing the last updates, Microsoft should have had to gather its top level specialists and have them elaborate clear and detailed explanations of what happened and what is the correct and secure way to correct the problems, without having to fear forever that some time in the future additional hidden issues might still pop up following these failures and all kinds of partial recoveries from them.

      But Microsoft knows that whatever they do to us, we will continue to use Windows, because this is the OS we are accustomed to use for so many years …

      The wide community, especially the common users who are not computer-professionals, will probably not switch to another OS, like Linux or MAC … though they are described as having much, much less problems …

      While still seeking for some detailed explanation,
      I can only hope that everything will be ok !

      Thanks a lot for all the info and all the enlightenment 🙂

      Best Regards,
      Iudith Mentzel

       

    • in reply to: Windows update not offering KB4088881 #180753

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello MrBrian,

      In the meantime, I am also trying to post to the forum you indicated:
      https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/.

      One of their detailed preparation documents
      https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/4736-windows-update-forum-posting-instructions.html

      indicate DISM to be used on Win 8 and higher, while for Win 7 the equivalent is
      the Windows Update Readiness tool:
      https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/947821/fix-windows-update-errors-by-using-the-dism-or-system-update-readiness

      which I have already tried and found no errors.

      I know that backups are a good thing … though I still could not decide what is the best backup tool to be adopted (for me).
      As I have read, here the MS tool is also not the best one …

      I also remember that Windows is supposed to have an option “to restore to the last known
      good configuration” … I really don’t understand why Windows does not do this automatically when it encounters a problem during a reboot, as it happened with
      the last flawed KB4088875  ….

      In my opinion, it is a MUST that Windows automatically uninstall any update that it could not install successfully (including the automatic reboot).
      The fact that MS does not invest in solving this problem for the world-wide community
      is a bigger crime in my opinion than not supplying patches for all these last hardware
      security problems that they tried to patch immediately and without thorough checking …

      The mere fact is that they destroyed many AMD machines, which from the start were not vulnerable to all those security issues and did not have any need to apply those patches,
      be them flawed or not …
      As far as I understand, the last sentence about all those complaints from a huge numbers
      of users is that that specific security problem could ultimately be corrected only by a hardware patch, and not by software patches, as MS was trying to do during the last several months.

      Making a full backup and storing it is not the problem … but I still need some way to go
      for being confident to apply a Restore in case of a real problem … since I have no training for such operations …

      The best that I could do by now is to backup all my documents,
      and, also, never store documents on the system partition.

      Is there any easy to use backup tool that you could recommend ?

      I know that Macrium Reflect was among the recommended once (but it seems that its free version is not available any more), while EaseUS Todo used to have some pros and cons.

      Thank you so much again,
      Iudith Mentzel

       

       

    • in reply to: Windows update not offering KB4088881 #180719

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello Mr.Brian,

      Thanks a lot for this info.

      Regarding restore points: I remember having read somewhere that these are not reliable, and in most cases they do not help exactly when you need them most.

      My system only keeps the last 2 restore points, but I still remember that once in the past, on a machine that had many restore points available ( I think it was Windows XP ), none of them could be used successfully.

      I was preparing to start doing a full backup anyway, but in the meantime I used to only backup my document/data files, because I was only accustomed to situations of complete hardware crash, when a full backup would not help anyway, as it is only compatible with the same hardware where it was initially taken.

      Please correct me if I am wrong.

      Regarding the link to “getting-out-of-a-no-boot-situation”, did you mean using the DISM command ?

      Thanks a lot & Best Regards,
      Iudith Mentzel

    • in reply to: Windows update not offering KB4088881 #179866

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello Brian,

      Thanks a lot for the info regarding the UpdateID 🙂
      Yes, I checked the registry and the following entry is present, exactly as documented in the requirements for MS4088881

      Key=”HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE”Subkey=”SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\QualityCompat”
      Value Name=”cadca5fe-87d3-4b96-b7fb-a231484277cc”
      Type=”REG_DWORD”
      Data=”0x00000000”

      The MS Update catalog for KB4088881 specifically states “Architecture: AMD64 , X86”.
      I try to understand the meaning of the message that I got (twice) in the verbose WindowsUpdate.log
      for this update:

      2018-03-31 18:48:59:048 536 fc4 Agent update.201 is NOT a generic match

      Now I applied the same trick for the next update, KB4100480,
      which has Update Id “b7533d34-0678-403f-bfdf-576c780a935d”
      This one has “Architecture: AMD64”.
      For this one there exist two different messages in the WindowsUpdate.log:
      …………………………..
      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 EEHndlr EvaluateApplicability: cache hit for 874632D8-8CB0-4E17-B438-D411EE40B13C.

      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 EEHndlr CBS applicability for 874632D8-8CB0-4E17-B438-D411EE40B13C: ApplicableState=0x0, InstallState=0x0.

      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 Handler CUHHandlerBase::Release: refcount is 1

      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 Perf, UpdateRule(IsPresent), time, 0, {874632D8-8CB0-4E17-B438-D411EE40B13C}.204, handler, none, result, 2

      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 Agent Final detection state for update 26415620 (updateId = {874632D8-8CB0-4E17-B438-D411EE40B13C}.204) is “NotApplicable”

      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 Perf, DetectForUpdate, time, 94, {874632D8-8CB0-4E17-B438-D411EE40B13C}.204, handler, CBS, result, “NotApplicable”
      ……
      2018-03-31 18:48:53:090 536 fc4 Agent Final detection state for update 26415621 (updateId = {B7533D34-0678-403F-BFDF-576C780A935D}.204) is “NotApplicable”
      ……
      2018-03-31 18:48:58:984 536 fc4 Agent update {B7533D34-0678-403F-BFDF-576C780A935D}.204 is NOT a generic match

      The last message also appears twice (just as for KB4088881), but the first message is new here !
      This shows that the Windows AU Agent DID find both these updates, but its “internal logic” decided that they are “not applicable” to my machine !
      This is weird, because for both of them the “Architecture” does specifically include AMD64.

      The second one KB4100480 was installed successfully on both my Intel machines, and the MS knowledge base article explains that this update is mandatory for ALL the machines that have installed the (flawed) Monthly updates of 2018-January thru March,
      as ALL my machines in fact did.
      To tell you the truth, I am much less troubled by some theoretical attack that might exploit this security problem, but I am very troubled by the mess that was caused on my machine by the 2018-March update (KB4088875),  which was especially flawed for AMD machines and which caused my machine to get stuck on reboot.
      I am afraid that something was corrupted in the entire Windows Update mechanism,
      which might not work any more !
      Now, after a lot of reading about all this issue, I am pretty sure that the Disk Cleanup that I had used on the AMD machine prior to this update was only a coincidence,
      and in fact, the real problem was caused by the flawed KB4088875 update itself.
      The strange is that many people seem to have encountered BSOD with AMD machines when applying the 2018-Jan update (KB4056894), while I only encountered it with the 2018-March update (KB4088875).

      Thanks a lot for your further insight and help 🙂

      Best Regards,
      Iudith Mentzel

    • in reply to: Windows update not offering KB4088881 #179646

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hello Brian, All,

      Thank you lots of times for your answer and I wish you a Very Happy Easter 🙂

      I enabled the verbose settings as instructed, and it created a huge WindowsUpdate.log file.

      Searching for the update ID you indicated, the entire file contains only the following 2 lines

      …………
      2018-03-31 18:48:59:048 536 fc4 Agent update {969E37F4-7022-4146-8BFB-0DBC76D75BC4}.201 is NOT a generic match
      …………
      2018-03-31 18:49:01:102 536 fc4 Agent update {969E37F4-7022-4146-8BFB-0DBC76D75BC4}.201 is NOT a generic match
      …………

      There are lots of similar lines for other ID-s as well.

      First, I wonder how could you deduce the Update ID from the KB number.

      As far as I was able to see, on the Microsoft Update catalog page for KB4088881 the Update ID does NOT appear.

      Second, in the last 24 hours there was another security update released, KB4100480.

      Just like KB4088881, my AMD machine also did not received this new update, while the two Intel machines did receive it.

      Could it be that these updates are “reserved” for Intel machines only ?

      The update catalog page for KB4088881 does show AMD on the details page.

      In addition to the above search, I also looked for FATAL errors reported, and I found the ones below.

      All these sections report the same error: 0x80070645
      They appear in the log file BEFORE the list of the entries similar to the two ones above.
      I don’t understand what is the meaning of these errors.

      They only appear in the verbose WindowsUpdate.log, but not in the regular one.

      https://pastebin.com/2yvcCLpX
      ……………………………………………………………………………………….

      Any further enlightenment about what can I do further will be very highly appreciated 🙂

      Thank you lots of times and, once again,

      HAPPY EASTER 🙂

      Best Regards,
      Iudith Mentzel

    • in reply to: November 2019 Patch Tuesday arrives #2004564

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      The MSRT installation fails even AFTER installing the SSU, so I am not sure that the problem is related to SSU.

    • in reply to: November 2019 Patch Tuesday arrives #2004561

      iudith.m
      AskWoody Lounger

      Hi All,
      I encountered the same problem with the MSRT .

      I downloaded both files from the catalog and executed successfully the big file,
      but the “delta” file seems to do nothing when executing it, no error and no feedback at all.

      Does anybody know whether running the tool manually is supposed to remove the update
      from appearing again ?

      Thanks & Best Regards,
      Iudith

    Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)