KB891711.EXE

Weeeell...

I've had fun today.

I eventually fixed things, but not until I'd uninstalled and reinstalled
Acrobat reader (BSOD), uninstalled the Kb891711 patch, NAV 2005 completely
FAILED to reinstall NAV and eventually went to the shop and bought PC-Cillin
(couldn't get McAfee from my shop).

I reckon I rebooted the computer about 50 times and wasted about 4 hours.

Onya Mr Gates. Automatic update is now "Off".

Andrew Bowie

www.users.on.net/abowie

Norton has a procedure to fix the damage that 891711 wrought (the problem
isn't with NAV). The procedure essentially amounts to deleting certain
folders and re-running LiveUpdate.

Auto-update "Off" is a good idea on Win2k boxes.

"Zboing Mouflon" wrote in message
...
Weeeell...

I've had fun today.

I eventually fixed things, but not until I'd uninstalled and reinstalled
Acrobat reader (BSOD), uninstalled the Kb891711 patch, NAV 2005 completely
FAILED to reinstall NAV and eventually went to the shop and bought
PC-Cillin
(couldn't get McAfee from my shop).

I reckon I rebooted the computer about 50 times and wasted about 4 hours.

Onya Mr Gates. Automatic update is now "Off".

Andrew Bowie

www.users.on.net/abowie

In article , Vince says...

No, it does not. OTOH, it is easily removed from the Control Panel,
Add/Remove Programs. Once removed, my system was back to normal.

I tried Add/Remove programs on it and it didn't seem to work - stayed in
the Startup list.
Also if the .EXE and .DLL files go you get an automatic update reminder
again.

Although it was removed while running when I tried it, I probably should
have killed the process first, then removed it. I don't get automatic update
reminders. I rely on a subscription to the security bulletin, and then
visiting the Windows Update site from the Start folder. Subsequent to
removing kb891711 from the Control Panel, running search fails to find
kb89171.exe in my file system.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

In article , heirloom says...

Thanks go to Jack, Mike and Norman for the input. Norman and Jack for
ruling out NAV and Mike for the continued support. Odd that an SR point is
set for some and not others. It would be interesting to see if the lack of
an SR point is common to those with the problems...

I did not see a SR point pop up during the install. I do have a SR for
9:28AM on March 11, 2004: "Windows Update V4".

Returning to the Windows Update site after removing kb891711.exe did not
show any Critical Updates available. Checking C:\WINDOWS\Downloaded Progams
showed a Symantec NAV ActiveX control, and an Update ActiveX control; the
latter for the date that I visited Windows Update.

I had uninstalled NAV a long time ago, but I guess I never thought to check
the Downloaded Programs folder. I have deleted both ActiveX controls, and
will revisit the Windows Update site...

Okay. I wasn't terribly swift, I ran the uninstaller with kb891711.exe
running; consequently, the KB891711 folder was not empty, and the Windows
Update site found the .exe file. But I tried one other test. I have a two
computer LAN, and I installed the Kb891711 "patch" (kind of lame to call an
application which runs in memory, instead of altering the system files a
patch). Kb891711 does not cause problems on the second computer.
Reinstalling Kb891711 on the first computer restores the problem. Both
computers were purchased on the same day, at the same store, and set up at
the same time. Here is a comparison, including a startup list from
'msconfig.exe', showing which applications were allowed to start on Megumi,
as they matched what was running on Naomi; all other startup applications
were unchecked, not allowed to run for the test:

Naomi: Megumi:
HP Pavilion 6745C HP Pavilion 6745C
Windows Me, current patches Windows Me, current patches
192 MBytes RAM 192 MBytes RAM
HDD 1: 20 GBytes HDD 1: 20 GBytes
HDD 2: 80 GBytes HDD 2: 40 GBytes
Grisoft AVG7 no on-access AV installed

Startup:
ScanRegistry
PCHealth
SystemTray
LoadPowerProfile
HPScanPatch
hpsysdrv
Delay
AdaptecDirectCD
igfxTray
HotKeysCmds
TweakUI
SchedulingAgent
LoadPowerProfile
SSDPSRV
*StateMgr
StillImageMonitor
PersFW
KB891711
NISTime

There are other items loading on Naomi which are not installed on Megumi.
There are other items installed on Megumi which are not installed on Naomi,
and were not allowed to start for testing. Here is what happens with
Kb891711 installed on each:

Naomi: Megumi:
Launch MSIE6, no fault Launch MSIE6, recoverable blue screen
Launch Firefox, no fault not tested now; failed earlier
not installed Launch Mozilla, long list of faults
Launch Thunderbird, no fault not tested now; failed earlier
Launch MSOE6 not tested

There were a series of blue screens with errors, and some other faults after
attempting to launch Mozilla 1.7.5 on Megumi:

Launch MSIE6:
Error: 06 : 0000 : 000042FF

Launch Mozilla 1.7.5:
Error: 06 : C000 : 00000193

On pressing the space bar to continue I got:

The system is dangerously low in resources!
Would you like to terminate the following application?
Syslogd [Not responding]

Syslogd is Kiwi Syslog Daemon (Version 7.1.4)

After pressing the "No" button, the next error was:

Error: 0E : 0197 : BFF8E64B

On pressing the space bar to continue I got:

Cvtwin
CVTWIN caused a segment not present fault
in module USER.EXE at 000b:00002c37

CVTWIN is a scheduled task which runs every hour, then shuts down. It is for
sending intrusion logs to DShield.

After pressing "Yes" to shut the application down I attempted to open a
Windows Explorer window to locate a memory checker. This resulted in another
error:

Error: 0E : 0197 : BFF8E64B

On pressing the space bar to continue I got:

Explorer
EXPLORER caused a segment not present fault
in module GDI.EXE at 0026:00001ffe

At this point I tried to execute a Start Shut Down Restart, and failed
to shut down cleanly. After power cycling, Megumi went through the bad
shutdown ScanDisk operation. After recovering, I went through the
'msconfig.exe' troubleshooting method until I had reduced the startup
applications to only those which correspond to the startup applications on
Naomi, which runs just fine with the Kb891711 update. Mozilla continued to
blue screen on Megumi.

I also ran a brief DocMemory scan on the RAM; no failures were noted. The
only differences I know of between Naomi and Megumi are that Megumi is using
the Microsoft Family Logon for running four profiles while Naomi does not
have the Microsoft Family Logon set up. Megumi had a power supply fan
failure causing a severe overheating condition while Naomi has never been
heat stressed. I get a certain amount of flakiness on Megumi now, that I had
not seen before; either the profiles, or the heat stress have something to
do with that. I may run a lengthier DocMemory scan some day; but I consider
Megumi to be crippled, and too old for economic repair. I expect to replace
it once my employment situation improves. In the meantime, unless it is
faulty hardware, or the profiles, I have no clue to the reason two nearly
identical computers have such drastically different results with the
Kb891711 lame-patch. For now, I will leave the application running on Naomi,
until the operator encounters serious problems not evident prior to the
update; but I will not reinstall the update on Megumi.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Chris,

I guess this a kludge since when MS05-002 was first announced it didn't
include patches for Win Me or 98/98SE which seem to be very much
afterthoughts.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

Nowhere in this article...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../MS05-002.mspx

...does it mention this is a kludge that has to run underfoot.

What's the story here? Will they come up with a definitive fix for
the broken code, or is underfootware becoming the "new darkness"
standard for patches?

It would be somewhat difficult for you to have been testing this
particular version of the patch since January since the version for use on
Win Me was only officially released on 8 March and is different from that
for say XP which was released in January. Any problems for XP however are
easily resolved by installing SP2 as those running XP SP2 having no need
for the patch.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Earl wrote:

891711 is definitely malware. I've been posting on this woefully
misguided and poorly tested patch since it came out on January 25th.
Microsoft needs to wake up and smell the coffee. In the meantime, all
the poor saps who installed it and have problems simply need to
uninstall it.

Updates released January 25 2005 for Win2k (I have no idea if it was
released for ME later than that):

KB887797
KB871250
KB891711
KB890175

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
It would be somewhat difficult for you to have been testing this
particular version of the patch since January since the version for use on
Win Me was only officially released on 8 March and is different from that
for say XP which was released in January. Any problems for XP however are
easily resolved by installing SP2 as those running XP SP2 having no need
for the patch.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Earl wrote:

891711 is definitely malware. I've been posting on this woefully
misguided and poorly tested patch since it came out on January 25th.
Microsoft needs to wake up and smell the coffee. In the meantime, all
the poor saps who installed it and have problems simply need to
uninstall it.

Non-issue for XP.

If you are saying that Microsoft was aware of the problems with 891711 on
Win2k at the end of January (do a Google on that patch and you'll see what
I'm talking about), but went ahead and released it for Millenium in MARCH,
then they've really got egg on their face. For many of us, this "patch" acts
more like a virus than a security fix.

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
It would be somewhat difficult for you to have been testing this
particular version of the patch since January since the version for use on
Win Me was only officially released on 8 March and is different from that
for say XP which was released in January. Any problems for XP however are
easily resolved by installing SP2 as those running XP SP2 having no need
for the patch.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Earl wrote:

891711 is definitely malware. I've been posting on this woefully
misguided and poorly tested patch since it came out on January 25th.
Microsoft needs to wake up and smell the coffee. In the meantime, all
the poor saps who installed it and have problems simply need to
uninstall it.

What I am saying is that you are posting to a Win Me newsgroup about a
patch that was released on 8 March. A patch that for many including
myself is causing no problems whatsoever on Win Me nor as it happens is
the earlier version of the patch that was released on 11 January for W2K
causing me problems either on a system running W2K. Obviously some users
including yourself are having problems but by no means is that all users
nor I feel most users.

Incidentally nowhere have I made any comment whatsoever about Microsoft
being aware of problems with this patch in January and would suggest that
you might want to read again what I wrote.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Earl wrote:

Non-issue for XP.

If you are saying that Microsoft was aware of the problems with
891711 on Win2k at the end of January (do a Google on that patch and
you'll see what I'm talking about), but went ahead and released it
for Millenium in MARCH, then they've really got egg on their face.
For many of us, this "patch" acts more like a virus than a security
fix.

Actually I'm fortunate enough to be running many systems in several
different configurations, with both old and new hardware. Unfortunately, I'm
also the guy that many people have called about this issue when it occurred
on their systems. I'm only curious how the relatively uninformed could be
aware of such a debacle with 891711 since January, with Microsoft so unaware
that they would then release the same patch upon unsuspecting ME users.

At this time, it appears the issue is common to systems running AMD
processors (now aint that a surprise), although the interaction of various
video cards may actually be at fault. Regardless, at this time, I see no
workaround except to remove 891711.

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
What I am saying is that you are posting to a Win Me newsgroup about a
patch that was released on 8 March. A patch that for many including
myself is causing no problems whatsoever on Win Me nor as it happens is
the earlier version of the patch that was released on 11 January for W2K
causing me problems either on a system running W2K. Obviously some users
including yourself are having problems but by no means is that all users
nor I feel most users.

Incidentally nowhere have I made any comment whatsoever about Microsoft
being aware of problems with this patch in January and would suggest that
you might want to read again what I wrote.
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/nichol.mspx
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Earl wrote:

Non-issue for XP.

If you are saying that Microsoft was aware of the problems with
891711 on Win2k at the end of January (do a Google on that patch and
you'll see what I'm talking about), but went ahead and released it
for Millenium in MARCH, then they've really got egg on their face.
For many of us, this "patch" acts more like a virus than a security
fix.