Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express 6 Service Pack 1 (KB837009)
in [Windows Update]
|
From: Ron Jenner on 31 Mar 2005 22:31 Robert: I am running 98 SE having the same problem only I have no idea what you are talking about as to finding the regression or expanding what ever. Can you tell me where to find out how to do this. I am having the same problem and have been for a couple of weeks . I am going to uninstall the two updates you suggested to see if that helps. You are way beyond me in this discussion, but I do need help. Thanks Ron "Robert Aldwinckle" <robald(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:eAFfqYbNFHA.604(a)TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Home User" <Home_User(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message > news:114mqf1hmc5v140(a)corp.supernews.com... > >I checked out the info relative to Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-018: > > Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express (823353). It states Windows > > Millennium Edition is not critically affected by any of the vulnerabilities > > that are addressed in this security bulletin. Question: Is it still your > > recommendation to expand Security Update Information and Outlook Express 6 > > SP1 for Windows XP, Windows XP SP1, Windows 2000 SP3, Windows 2000 SP4, and > > Windows NT 4.0 SP6a to see the file manifest? Would it even be possible to > > check on the versions of *all* those modules listed, since it doesn't apply > > to Windows ME? I'm puzzled... > > Definitely. It is a list of modules and they are modules which you have. > The versions of those modules that you have will indicate to us what > update you have applied. If it is as I suspect that your case is similar > to Joann's one of those modules will be regressed to a version which is > pre-837009 and that is the reason that you are getting that update > continually reoffered. Then what would happen is that it couldn't be > applied because you already have a superseding update applied: > 823353 + 887797. > > BTW if your msinfo32 tool is at all similar to XP's you may find > that using its list of loaded modules is the easiest way to compile > your version of that list. E.g. in XP I can open the tool at that list > by Run... (e.g. Win-R and enter:) msinfo32 /category SWEnvLoadedModules > Then the contents of that list operates as a standard multiple selection > list. E.g. select an element and copy it to ClipBoard with Ctrl-c > or select several elements by pressing a the Ctrl- key each time > one is selected and then copy the combined selection. Etc. > > If you'd rather not bother collect the necessary diagnostics > which prove the reason for your problem you could guess > that the reason is understood (as explained above) and then > just uninstall the above two updates (at least) in the hope that > doing that would create a more consistent set of those modules. > (E.g. in the event that the hypothetical regressed module was > one of the ones which was updated by either of those updates > uninstalling them would restore the previous version of it > which would likely be a non-regressed version. So far AFAIK > nobody has a theory as to why so many people seem to have > regressed versions of one of more of those modules.) > > > HTH > > Robert > --- > >
From: Ron Jenner on 31 Mar 2005 23:40 Robert: I uninstalled 823353 I could not fine 887797 on the computer. I then went back to windows update and it installed 837009. For the first time 837009 now shows in the add/remove window. However, 887797 did not appear in the windows update when I returned after installing 937009. I am NOT recommending anyone else do this because I had no idea what I was doing. I am running 98 ES and I still seem to be missing 887797 and 823353, but I do appear to have 837009. Any comments of suggestions cheerfully accepted. But it would be better to send them to my email address as well as the group because this is my first time in a group and I might not be able to get back here to find them. "Ron Jenner" <jenner_ron(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqoPTumNFHA.3380(a)TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Robert: > I am running 98 SE having the same problem only I have no idea what you are > talking about as to finding the regression or expanding what ever. Can you > tell me where to find out how to do this. I am having the same problem and > have been for a couple of weeks . > > I am going to uninstall the two updates you suggested to see if that helps. > You are way beyond me in this discussion, but I do need help. > > Thanks > Ron > "Robert Aldwinckle" <robald(a)techemail.com> wrote in message > news:eAFfqYbNFHA.604(a)TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > "Home User" <Home_User(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message > > news:114mqf1hmc5v140(a)corp.supernews.com... > > >I checked out the info relative to Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-018: > > > Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express (823353). It states > Windows > > > Millennium Edition is not critically affected by any of the > vulnerabilities > > > that are addressed in this security bulletin. Question: Is it still your > > > recommendation to expand Security Update Information and Outlook Express > 6 > > > SP1 for Windows XP, Windows XP SP1, Windows 2000 SP3, Windows 2000 SP4, > and > > > Windows NT 4.0 SP6a to see the file manifest? Would it even be possible > to > > > check on the versions of *all* those modules listed, since it doesn't > apply > > > to Windows ME? I'm puzzled... > > > > Definitely. It is a list of modules and they are modules which you have. > > The versions of those modules that you have will indicate to us what > > update you have applied. If it is as I suspect that your case is similar > > to Joann's one of those modules will be regressed to a version which is > > pre-837009 and that is the reason that you are getting that update > > continually reoffered. Then what would happen is that it couldn't be > > applied because you already have a superseding update applied: > > 823353 + 887797. > > > > BTW if your msinfo32 tool is at all similar to XP's you may find > > that using its list of loaded modules is the easiest way to compile > > your version of that list. E.g. in XP I can open the tool at that list > > by Run... (e.g. Win-R and enter:) msinfo32 /category > SWEnvLoadedModules > > Then the contents of that list operates as a standard multiple selection > > list. E.g. select an element and copy it to ClipBoard with Ctrl-c > > or select several elements by pressing a the Ctrl- key each time > > one is selected and then copy the combined selection. Etc. > > > > If you'd rather not bother collect the necessary diagnostics > > which prove the reason for your problem you could guess > > that the reason is understood (as explained above) and then > > just uninstall the above two updates (at least) in the hope that > > doing that would create a more consistent set of those modules. > > (E.g. in the event that the hypothetical regressed module was > > one of the ones which was updated by either of those updates > > uninstalling them would restore the previous version of it > > which would likely be a non-regressed version. So far AFAIK > > nobody has a theory as to why so many people seem to have > > regressed versions of one of more of those modules.) > > > > > > HTH > > > > Robert > > --- > > > > > >
From: Robert Aldwinckle on 1 Apr 2005 02:06 "Ron Jenner" <jenner_ron(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e7%23xfUnNFHA.3928(a)TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Robert: > > I uninstalled 823353 I could not fine 887797 on the computer. > > I then went back to windows update and it installed 837009. For the first > time 837009 now shows in the add/remove window. However, 887797 did not > appear in the windows update when I returned after installing 937009. I'm not sure it will. 887797 is not a security update. You may have to get it via the Windows Update Catalog. However, first you will have to reinstall its pre-requisite, 823353. <title>Description of the cumulative update for Outlook Express (KB887797)</title> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;887797 <quote> <b>Note</b> Before this update is made available to you on the Windows Update Web site, you must install cumulative security update 823353. </quote> Even 823353 which is a security update is only rated Moderate so you may not see it offered with a very high profile either. Use the Security Bulletin Search Tool to confirm this information if you like: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx Did you install updates from the Security Updates CD? I suspect that that is where you could have been seeing the modules for this update level. It would be interesting to know what versions of the modules you actually had but unless you saved that information before doing the uninstall I'm not sure if it will have been recorded somewhere. If you're interested you might try looking for a log file made by your uninstall and see if it gives any sign of the module version before it is replaced. > > I am NOT recommending anyone else do this because I had no idea what I was > doing. I am running 98 ES and I still seem to be missing 887797 and 823353, > but I do appear to have 837009. > > Any comments of suggestions cheerfully accepted. But it would be better to > send them to my email address as well as the group because this is my first > time in a group and I might not be able to get back here to find them. You could try using the notification feature of the Microsoft web interface to newsgroups or just return to this site periodically: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?query=jenner&dg=microsoft.public.windowsupdate&cat=en-us-ms-winxp&lang=en&cr=US&pt=&catlist=B0DE109D-10E1-4C3C-BCC9-8EB7A22FC6A0&dglist=&ptlist=&exp=&sloc=en-us (web interface search for jenner ) HTH Robert --- > "Ron Jenner" <jenner_ron(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:eqoPTumNFHA.3380(a)TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Robert: >> I am running 98 SE having the same problem only I have no idea what you > are >> talking about as to finding the regression or expanding what ever. Can > you >> tell me where to find out how to do this. I am having the same problem > and >> have been for a couple of weeks . >> >> I am going to uninstall the two updates you suggested to see if that > helps. >> You are way beyond me in this discussion, but I do need help. >> >> Thanks >> Ron >> "Robert Aldwinckle" <robald(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> news:eAFfqYbNFHA.604(a)TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> > "Home User" <Home_User(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message >> > news:114mqf1hmc5v140(a)corp.supernews.com... >> > >I checked out the info relative to Microsoft Security Bulletin > MS04-018: >> > > Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express (823353). It states >> Windows >> > > Millennium Edition is not critically affected by any of the >> vulnerabilities >> > > that are addressed in this security bulletin. Question: Is it still > your >> > > recommendation to expand Security Update Information and Outlook > Express >> 6 >> > > SP1 for Windows XP, Windows XP SP1, Windows 2000 SP3, Windows 2000 > SP4, >> and >> > > Windows NT 4.0 SP6a to see the file manifest? Would it even be > possible >> to >> > > check on the versions of *all* those modules listed, since it doesn't >> apply >> > > to Windows ME? I'm puzzled... >> > >> > Definitely. It is a list of modules and they are modules which you > have. >> > The versions of those modules that you have will indicate to us what >> > update you have applied. If it is as I suspect that your case is > similar >> > to Joann's one of those modules will be regressed to a version which is >> > pre-837009 and that is the reason that you are getting that update >> > continually reoffered. Then what would happen is that it couldn't be >> > applied because you already have a superseding update applied: >> > 823353 + 887797. >> > >> > BTW if your msinfo32 tool is at all similar to XP's you may find >> > that using its list of loaded modules is the easiest way to compile >> > your version of that list. E.g. in XP I can open the tool at that > list >> > by Run... (e.g. Win-R and enter:) msinfo32 /category >> SWEnvLoadedModules >> > Then the contents of that list operates as a standard multiple selection >> > list. E.g. select an element and copy it to ClipBoard with Ctrl-c >> > or select several elements by pressing a the Ctrl- key each time >> > one is selected and then copy the combined selection. Etc. >> > >> > If you'd rather not bother collect the necessary diagnostics >> > which prove the reason for your problem you could guess >> > that the reason is understood (as explained above) and then >> > just uninstall the above two updates (at least) in the hope that >> > doing that would create a more consistent set of those modules. >> > (E.g. in the event that the hypothetical regressed module was >> > one of the ones which was updated by either of those updates >> > uninstalling them would restore the previous version of it >> > which would likely be a non-regressed version. So far AFAIK >> > nobody has a theory as to why so many people seem to have >> > regressed versions of one of more of those modules.) >> > >> > >> > HTH >> > >> > Robert >> > --- >> > >> > >> >> > >
From: Robert Aldwinckle on 1 Apr 2005 02:18 "Home User" <Home_User(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message news:114ohmpq32mpp99(a)corp.supernews.com... > Here is what I have found: > > WABMIG.EXE REGRESSED > WABIMP.DLL *NEWER VERSION > WABFIND.DLL REGRESSED > WAB32.DLL *NEWER VERSION > WAB.EXE REGRESSED > Msoert2.dll regressed > Msoeacct.dll regressed > MSOE.exe *NEWER VERSION > inetcomm.dll *NEWER VERSION > > *Newer version than what was listed in the manifest, whereas REGRESSED was > an older version. The rest of the file versions matched. That's interesting... ;) I take it that your msinfo32 doesn't have the feature which would allow you to capture the version information easily as I suggested? <eg> The four modules with newer versions correspond to the only ones that I have in KB887797\SP2QFE Although there is no manifest for that update and (the last time I checked) the DLL Help Database was not up-to-date and although I have a different OS let's assume that those four are from your 887797 update. (As I mentioned you could probably get more people with common experience to collaborate with in a newsgroup which specializes in your OS.) Since you are comparing with 887797's pre-requisite 823353, "regressed" may only mean that somehow you managed to apply 887797 without first applying 823353. E.g. you might find that those modules' versions match the manifest for the previous cumulative OE update 837009 (listed by MS04-013) Oh, I see, you have listed only some of the modules in the manifest and the ones which you didn't list have the correct version? Then that implies that the ones you list as regressed are true limited regressions of individual modules. E.g. it is not a case of regressing a complete update. In fact, the correct version of all those modules is 6.00.2800.1123 which would have come initially from another incompletely documented patch: 331923 (again, because it wasn't a security update). So, where would modules which regress those have come from? Probably from OE6, the pre-requisite for 331923. And why would they be regressing? One possibility (for WinME) is (ironically) if those modules all somehow had been (incorrectly) added to its SFP directory at that level SFP could continually undo any update made to them which did not also update the SFP copy. Please check on that possibility. E.g. see if those modules are referenced in your SFPLOG. Also search your harddrive for all instances of them. (Make sure that you are able to see all modules, including System and Hidden modules.) Tell us the latest version of each that you can find and where you found it. Good luck Robert ---
From: Home User on 1 Apr 2005 14:31
Yes, my msinfo32 doesn't have the feature which allows me to capture the version information easily. And, I can do a sort to quickly see if there are multiple occurrences of files. Thanks for the suggestion! But, you lost me with "One possibility (for WinME) is (ironically) if those modules all somehow had been (incorrectly) added to its SFP directory at that level SFP could continually undo any update made to them which did not also update the SFP copy." I thought I was keeping up pretty well, for not being a techie. But, I'm throwing in the towel. UNLESS, you can come up with a less time-consuming suggestion? Besides ignoring it, what else can I do? For example, can I hide it from showing up in my Windows Update? You know, something like the option of "Choose which categories and updates to display on Windows Update" (I had to do that already for Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1, for some reason Windows Update thinks I have .NET Framework on my system.) BTW, I started out in the Windows ME newsgroup, and they referred me here! Go figure! "Robert Aldwinckle" <robald(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:%23QQALsoNFHA.3220(a)TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > "Home User" <Home_User(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message > news:114ohmpq32mpp99(a)corp.supernews.com... > > Here is what I have found: > > > > WABMIG.EXE REGRESSED > > WABIMP.DLL *NEWER VERSION > > WABFIND.DLL REGRESSED > > WAB32.DLL *NEWER VERSION > > WAB.EXE REGRESSED > > Msoert2.dll regressed > > Msoeacct.dll regressed > > MSOE.exe *NEWER VERSION > > inetcomm.dll *NEWER VERSION > > > > *Newer version than what was listed in the manifest, whereas REGRESSED was > > an older version. The rest of the file versions matched. > > That's interesting... ;) > I take it that your msinfo32 doesn't have the feature which > would allow you to capture the version information easily > as I suggested? <eg> > > The four modules with newer versions correspond to the only ones > that I have in KB887797\SP2QFE Although there is no manifest > for that update and (the last time I checked) the DLL Help Database > was not up-to-date and although I have a different OS let's assume > that those four are from your 887797 update. (As I mentioned > you could probably get more people with common experience > to collaborate with in a newsgroup which specializes in your OS.) > > Since you are comparing with 887797's pre-requisite 823353, > "regressed" may only mean that somehow you managed to apply > 887797 without first applying 823353. E.g. you might find that > those modules' versions match the manifest for the previous > cumulative OE update 837009 (listed by MS04-013) > > Oh, I see, you have listed only some of the modules in the manifest > and the ones which you didn't list have the correct version? > Then that implies that the ones you list as regressed are true limited > regressions of individual modules. E.g. it is not a case of regressing > a complete update. > > In fact, the correct version of all those modules is 6.00.2800.1123 > which would have come initially from another incompletely documented > patch: 331923 (again, because it wasn't a security update). > > So, where would modules which regress those have come from? > Probably from OE6, the pre-requisite for 331923. > And why would they be regressing? One possibility (for WinME) > is (ironically) if those modules all somehow had been (incorrectly) > added to its SFP directory at that level SFP could continually undo > any update made to them which did not also update the SFP copy. > > Please check on that possibility. E.g. see if those modules are > referenced in your SFPLOG. Also search your harddrive > for all instances of them. (Make sure that you are able to see > all modules, including System and Hidden modules.) > Tell us the latest version of each that you can find and where > you found it. > > > Good luck > > Robert > --- > > |