List Archives

This forum is an archive of all posts to our mailing list over the past few years. The forum is set read only therefore to contribute you will need to join our list community. See more info about this here.

List Archives

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives

Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: UPDATE: Questions about hotfix 903235 (MS05-037)

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

DavidCliffe User is Offline

Posts:10

08/31/2005 2:40 AM
Just an update here (FYI) - A Microsoft tech. on the forums pointed out to me that the IE Cumulative Update 896727 from bulletin MS05-038 supersedes the hotfix 903235 in MS05-037. Once the cumulative update is applied, MBSA v2 no longer reports on the former. Forty lashes to me for not reading more carefully first :-) -DaveC Reuters IS&T Service Delivery From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David CliffeSent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:26 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Questions about hotfix 903235 (MS05-037) Thanks Rick/Deji. Interesting that your MBSA v2 is reporting on it OK. Maybe I am the only one :-o I have worked around issues (2) and (3) [below] for now, and will take a moment to offer my opinion on (1). Here we have a hotfix/bulletin that has been given a critical rating, as have many other hotfixes before and after it. From a customer's viewpoint, I would like some consistency in the manner in which these hotfixes are reported as being installed. This has gotten better by the way, but I don't find 903235 to be a good example. During the time when I am reporting on installed instances, the technical details about each hotfix (what it does/how it does it) are not important to me. I want to verify it's been installed and I want to rely on a consistent method to do so. In this particular case, if there are OS/SP specific reasons why one reg key has to be used in favor of another, then so be it, but then I suggest there may be an error in the documented bulletin, where at least the XP SP2 section should direct us to the "Installed Components" subkey, rather than the "ActiveX Compatibility" subkey. -DaveC Reuters IS&T Service Delivery From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:11 PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Questions about hotfix 903235 (MS05-037) Inline¦¦. From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David CliffeSent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:34 AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] OT: Questions about hotfix 903235 (MS05-037) Hi - I've posted this elsewhere, but thought maybe not a bad idea to run it past this list for those that don't mind (thanks). I've seen the following behavior with regard to this hotfix 903235: (1) The bulletin MS05-037 states to check here for its existence (post installation): HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0} In the past, the 'norm' for IExpress-type patches has been here:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{8ade8c02-8da6-4ec1-a9ee-ec00ff73ce98} [note: GUID above is specific to this hotfix] Why this change in documentation? [RTK] Not a change in documentation. The hotfix sets bits in the running of the actual component, so the compatibility flags are manipulated, rather than new moving parts. I acknowledge that the location changes, but this is due to how the hotfix effects the installed component, JView Profiler. (2) I find that the SRVINFO tool does NOT identify this hotfix on SP1 (XP) and SP4 (2000) machines. Was expecting to see it under the "Internet Explorer 6" subheading of the SRVINFO output for these O/S. [RTK] Can™t confirm or deny this one¦.. Don™t have SRVINFO currently on anything (3) I find that MBSA v.2 neither identifies it as installed nor identifies it as missing on SP1/2 (XP) and SP4 (2000) machines. Can anyone else corrorborate these findings? I'm told by our TAM that nobody else has reported this yet. [RTK] MBSA on my systems detect that it is either installed or not installed. Thanks! -DaveC Reuters IS&T Service Delivery -----------------------------------------------------------------Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.comTo find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo Any views expressed in this message are those of the individualsender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Reuters Ltd.-----------------------------------------------------------------Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.comTo find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo Any views expressed in this message are those of the individualsender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Reuters Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums >ActiveDir Mail List Archive >List Archives > RE: [ActiveDir] OT: UPDATE: Questions about hotfix 903235 (MS05-037)

ActiveForums 3.7

Syndicate

Friends

List Archives

List Archives

Friends

Members

Articles

Related Links

Ads