cluberti Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I'm starting to believe that the error is a false positive. Maybe is a problem with the HFNETCHK tool.Anyone run the hfnetchk without errors?I'm not sure that's the case - note that the binary versions it's checking against are 6.x versions (the reported greater than/less than versions), yet IE7 is installed. This would indicate a failure of a complete IE7 install rather than a false-positive. The machine still thinks it's running IE6, not IE7, it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drizzt_Kueh Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 The system have mshtml.dll 7.x version, and seems to be correct. It's because the internet explorer version installed is 7.0. The HFSNETCHK is expecting the 6.x version, not the system.Anyone can run the hfnetchk tool in a clear (not hfsliped) installation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 If that was the case, hfnetchk would report all XP systems with IE7 as missing the hotfix. That's just silly, hfnetchk isn't at fault, the install of IE7 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James_A Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Well that's nowhere near the full story, because the following statement is true:KB956390 does not contain shdocvw.dll. It only has mshtml.dllprovided you qualify it, by adding the words "for IE7".KB956390 contains a SP2QFE branch and a SP2GDR branch. There is NO SP3 branch.Both branches have 32 files. Neither branch has shdocvw.dll in it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 The SP2QFE branch will install on SP3, as will the SP2GDR branch. The branch is determined by the AnalyzeForBranching phase of setup, and even on SP3 systems, certain hotfixes (mostly IE) are still being built from the SP2xxx branches for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedofonan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Is there any reason why the link shown in the last post should be pointing to Savvis Communications (nsatc.net) rather than the expected/usual link to microsoft.com ??I didn't even notice and I have no idea what got me there (maybe load-balancing server pool business?). I looked into that link, DNS points to 207.46.192.254, which in turn reverse-looks back to microsoft.com, not Savvis. Or at least that is where it goes today. Who can tell what it did last week, I'm now forced to wonder, because...That page (and the one without the .nsatc.net, I tried both just now) today downloads a different file with a different filename (now it has a 'IE7-' prefix).The good news is that this new file's content exactly matches the 'good stuff' I got last week the hard way from 'SoftwareDistribution\Download'.In other words, my problem is no more.I tried to see what I get using HFNETCHK, but the only version I could find to install is an old free version. When I run it, it downloads a mssecure.xml that is empty other than the message "This file is no longer supported. Please see http://forum.shavlik.com/viewtopic.php?t=4155".In other words, I am still waiting your precious time with my bozo. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drizzt_Kueh Posted November 27, 2008 Author Share Posted November 27, 2008 The problem of the hf 956390 (see the first post) seems to be solved integrating both of 956390 updates, the common (ie6) WindowsXP-KB956390-x86-xxx.exe and the ie7 update IE7-WindowsXP-KB956390-x86-xxx.exe.But i've read in many places indicating not slipstreaming ie6 Hotfixes if we are slipstreaming ie7 HF.Can you tell me the cons of slipstreaming both HF? Thx U all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyp Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Pros and cons are really easy. If you want IE and the OS to work, then you must choose either IE6 or IE7. If you don't IE and the OS to work, then mix and match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drizzt_Kueh Posted November 28, 2008 Author Share Posted November 28, 2008 (edited) I understand your point tommyp... but the system is working ok (at least, until now ) and that's the only way that the hfnetchk tool seems to be happy. Can you help me to understand why the hfnetchk keep me telling versions problem (WU3.txt) if i don't slipstreaming the hf956390, ie6 version?By other side, you 're saying that the ie7 hf is not being slipstreamed after the ie6 hf?Can I ask you how is the depelopment of the hfslip 2.0 final version? Edited November 28, 2008 by Drizzt_Kueh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrQQ Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 hey guys,so what exactly is the decision on this issue?i'm getting that missing updat easwell, hfnetchk says:Scan performed Sat Nov 29 12:57:47 2008Shavlik Technologies Network Security Hotfix Checker, 3.86Using XML data version = 2008.11.11.0 Last modified on 2008/11/11.----------------------------QQ-AT-HOME (192.168.11.169)---------------------------- * WINDOWS XP SP3 Patch NOT Installed MS08-058 956390 File C:\WINDOWS\system32\mshtml.dll has a file version [8.0.6001.18241] that is greater than what is expected [6.0.2900.5659]. - File C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdocvw.dll has a file version [6.0.2900.5512] that is less than what is expected [6.0.2900.5659]even on machine where IE8 is manually installed! so it would seem that hfnetchk fails to detect which ie version should be present.is there any way to make WU not suggest KB956390/1 after hfslip installation?thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now