Windows 7 64 bit - KB982666
Posted 09 August 2010 - 02:02 AM
Oh, and btw, I don't believe my APUP folder containing Windows 7 32 bit had KB982666. My system is Windows 7 Professional 64 bit.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:11 AM
1. What systems are affected by this vulnerability?
This vulnerability affects Windows 7 systems.
2. Is my computer vulnerable if I have not installed KB973917?
Systems running supported editions of Windows 7 are vulnerable.
3. Will I be offered this security update if I do not have KB973917 installed?
Systems which do not have the update in KB973917 installed will not be offered this update, as they are not affected by this security vulnerability.
...The way I'm reading this, if you've installed KB973917 on Windows 7 you will need to install KB982666, otherwise KB982666 wont install. Do you have KB973917 installed on your system? If you do this throws my theory out the Windows(s), if not, this might explain why KB982666 wont install. Also, did you install SP1 beta for Windows 7?
Here's the FAQ details unedited.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 03:14 PM
This vulnerability affects Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 systems.
In addition, it also affects Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 systems that have installed KB973917, a non-security update that implements Extended Protection for Authentication.
When I first posted I was thinking like you gUiTaR_mIkE, in that KB982666 wasn't installing because I didn't have KB973917 installed (and I don't). As I reread now, it's looking more to me that KB973917 wasn't offered for Windows 7. That still leaves everything as clear as mud . For the record though, I haven't installed SP1 beta for Windows 7.
Posted 12 August 2010 - 12:27 AM
This is puzzling for sure. The only prerequisite I see is:
Internet Information Services 7.5 on Windows 7 for 32-bit Systems / Internet Information Services 7.5 on Windows 7 for x64-based Systems
...Here's a note:
IIS is not turned on by default when Windows is installed, but it can be selected from the list of optional features. It is available in all editions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, including Home Basic, but some features are not supported on client versions of Windows.
I wonder if the service needs to be running before a patch can be applied, or, are you missing this so-called feature - like I said before, confusing? Bottom line, you ran the installer, it let you know - this update doesn't apply to you, I guess that settles it, or does it?
Posted 01 September 2010 - 04:17 PM
Seems to me that if an update does not apply to your system it should not appear in the list of critical updates.
Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:35 PM
However. In my first post on this issue I mentioned that I didn't think that my Windows 7 32 bit folder had KB982666 in it. That wasn't entirely correct. I just checked again and I found XXX-KB982666_seven_x86.apm in Autopatcher\Windows7-32bit\modules\Critical. There aren't the associated folders with it.
I don't want to cross post, but when I found that XXX-KB982666_seven_x86.apm file, I came across another blast from the past that was addressed (I thought) back in this posting session. Back then, my Windows 7-32 bit wasn't showing as official because of a file named XXX-KB975561_seven_x86.apm. I deleted it and the release became official. I only mention this because I see it's in the Windows 7-32 bit critical folder again - along with XXX-KB982666_seven_x86.apm. Despite that, the 32 bit release shows as official .
Not that any of this helps, lol. I just wondered whether both of these issues were things that slipped by Domenico. KB982666 isn't properly in Win7-32 bit .. and KB975561 isn't properly in 32 or 64 bit. That, and now there have been reports (ok, only 2 reports ) of KB982666 not being a necessary update. Perhaps it was just an update he was looking into and he never meant to actually add to the releases?
Posted 02 September 2010 - 09:36 PM
Posted 02 September 2010 - 09:46 PM
It appears Domenico is looking into the issue, he has once again commented out (#) this update from the script.
Is your release (7 x86) Official with KB982666_seven_x86.apm present, if not I would delete the .apm file, rerun APUP, and update only 7 x86. If you were to download this release right now fresh, this update would be bypassed, therefore not be in the release.
Bottom line here, it appears as if Domenico is trying to find an answer, he simply hasn't found one yet, in the mean time he is keeping this update out of the release by blocking the download (the #).
Posted 03 September 2010 - 01:28 AM
Thanks for alerting Domenico about the topic (even though I've kinda warped it into more than one topic now ). I suppose the main topic for this thread is still KB982666 .. just in both 64 and 32 bit now. I figured he'd get around to it when he had a chance.
My Windows 7 x86 release is official with both KB982666_seven_x86.apm and XXX-KB975561_seven_x86.apm present. Removing either of them makes the release unofficial in that folder for me .. which seems odd if Domenico is blocking the download at present. If my release is official with those apms present, wouldn't anybody doing a fresh download get an unofficial release??
Regardless, thanks for the fast responses and assistance gentlemen.
Posted 03 September 2010 - 03:54 AM
It is clear that a fresh download of 7 x86 is bypassing these updates (until a solution for them is found)... from the script autopatcher_seven_x86_20100824.script
Posted 03 September 2010 - 12:15 PM
some notes about Seven releases:
- x86 release: My script should have exclude some files in my source directory (.svn, XXX-* and .7z)... there is a problem in my script!
- XXX-* files in x86 release will be removed ASAP
- To solve KB982666 issue, I'm thinking to add a new check on component (I must find a valid .ddl or .ocx or .cat for KB975561 detection)
- I'll come back from my vacation next Sunday!
I'm sorry for these issues... I hope to fix them next Sunday or Monday (I'll have to drive for 1300 km to come back! )
If anyone would like to propose another valid solution for KB982666 issue, please post your idea!
Posted 05 September 2010 - 12:04 AM
Did you run APUP after you removed the updates (.apm files & folders associated with the .apm)?
-Yes, first removed XXX-KB975561_seven_x86.apm and then ran APUP .. then XXX-KB982666_seven_x86.apm and ran APUP. There were no associated folders with it. I never tried to remove the .rti file from that folder though.
Do you actually have a file that begins with XXX-, I don't see anything like this in either script, x86 or x64.
-Actually, I had a typo in post #9. I stated it correctly in post #6. I have 2 files that begin with XXX. Those being XXX-KB975561_seven_x86.apm and XXX-KB982666_seven_x86.apm.
It is my opinion - get rid of these files for now since it seems to be giving you such concern, even if the release becomes Unofficial, you will know the reason why.
-Nah, no real concern, lol .. at least not with my Win7-x86 folder. I just wanted to let the powers that be know that something didn't appear right. With my Win7-x64 folder, I was almost thinking about installing KB973917 to see if that would let KB982666 install. I guess AutoPatcher always showing that something needed to be installed was bugging me a little bit .
I have to admit that thus far I've been too lazy (busy?) to download a fresh release. I don't think I'm going to do anything now though. I see that Domenico is aware of these issues and will now just eagerly anticipate the fixes.
Thanks for your attention to the issues. Enjoy your vacation and drive safe.
Posted 06 September 2010 - 08:56 PM
I'm testing a solution for KB982666 module issue.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users