Re: Installing today's Office 2000 security update (KB892842) with

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Bill, that is what I am pretty much seeing on my old Office 2000 installations as well. It looks like clean installations won't fix this problem. Nice analysis and post.


On 1/16/2006 12:56 AM PT, Bill Drake wrote:

I have done several tests with a newly-generated WXP-SP2
install and a fresh install of O2K - patched with Office Update
using the CD-Install process.

I find that the update process proceeds normally until the
Office 2000 KB892842 (January 10th, 2006 Security Update
for Outlook 2000) patch is installed.  The KB892842 patch
is detected as absent, the patchfile is downloaded and the
update is successfully installed - all as per the normal status
reports from the Office Update website.

However, upon re-entering the Office Update website after the
KB892842 Update has been reported by the previous update-cycle
as successful - the Office Update website *now* detects the
December 18th 2002 (note 2002!) update as not installed.

Note: I have also confirmed that MBSA 1.2.1 reports the same error.


Consequently, on this follow-up update-cycle, the already-installed
December 18th Update patch is detected as already-downloaded (0kB
download) and the Update Site attempts to reinstall the already-installed
patch.  As expected, the patch-reinstall fails (since it is already
present).

At that point, the Office Update website responds saying something has
gone wrong with the update and suggests the usual set of problem-resolution
suggestions - none of which are relevant to the situation.


I am suspicious that the detection-logic for the presence of the December
18th 2002 update is now obsolete as a result of the changes made by the
January 10th 2006 update.

I suspect the detection logic for the December 18th 2002 update is
seeing the version-information for the patchfiles updated by the January
10th 2006 update.  The code for the detection logic for the December
18th 2002 update sees the version-numbers resulting from the January
10th 2006 update as incorrect - and therefore reports that the December
18th 2002 update requires reinstallation.

Then, when the December 18th 2002 update attempts to reinstall, the
version-checking in that patchfile quite rightly prohibits the reinstall
of the December 18th 2002 update over-top of the January 10th 2006
update (version-number regression-prevention in action) and the
result-code for the patch is rightly interpreted by the Office Update site
as an update failure (correctly so).


As mentioned above, the version-detection info for the December 18th
2002 update must be updated so it is not false-triggered in error by
the changes induced by the January 10, 2006 update.  This should
prevent the error-cycle noted above from recurring.


Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill





Jds wrote:

I spoke with Microsoft today about this issue and they are
investigating this issue.

I will post the results when I get them...

As a side note microsoft told me they will support Office 2000 and
Windows 2000 SP4 + SR1 until there end of life, also they told me
that if the security fix broke something then they will fix what was
broken by the security fix.


Hint:  extended support only provides security fixes.
Office 2000 security update KB is a security related update, and
therefore covered.

--?
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.  All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Ant asked:


On 1/12/2006 8:15 PM PT, Lawrence Garvin (MVP) wrote:



Well, since this problem is reproducible on multiple machines with
some people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this. :)



Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec,
surely you understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient
software, and product lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000
products expired on June 30, 2004. While extended support does not
expire until June 2009, extended support only provides security
fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in
Norton Antivirus 2000.

No? :-)

If that is the case, then why did MS release this update? :P
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: phillip_pi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Thank you.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... would prevent SASSER (or a firewall) for the first hours, ... Common sense has the additional advantage that it ... They don't know how to fix ... > installations by installing Norton bloatware. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers)
  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... would prevent SASSER (or a firewall) for the first hours, ... Common sense has the additional advantage that it ... They don't know how to fix ... > installations by installing Norton bloatware. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Fearful of SP2
    ... > complaints because they're in a newsgroup. ... > probably are many installations without problems, ... And except for very rare situations, they always get a fix ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: installing xp sp2
    ... "this will ruin your day" ... SP-2 has gone fine on all computers I installed SP-2. ... Of course a clean computer helped ensure trouble-free installations of ... > a fix comes soon. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • [GIT] Networking
    ... RFS support from Tom Herbert et al. at Google. ... can flow distribute to cpus completely in hardware. ... iwlwifi: ... mac80211: fix paged defragmentation ...
    (Linux-Kernel)