Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


glnz

POSReady 2009 updates ported to Windows XP SP3 ENU

Recommended Posts

I tried substituting the win32k.sys file from KB3037639 (5.2.3790.5534) onto my system into the System32 and DLLCache folders, and was rewarded with a BSOD when the desktop was due to load.

 

Stop 21A (Fatal System Error).

"The session manager initialisation system process terminated unexpectedly with a status of 0xc0000263."

 

It looks like a no go sadly, but I wasn't really expecting to be able to just replace a 5.1 file with a 5.2 file.

:no:

I hope MS do roll out a fix for 5.1 systems, as surely the font corruption must be a serious issue even on POS systems.

:)

Edited by Dave-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 5.2 files known to work OK on XP are some of the 2k3 USB drivers modules.

A fixed update for the KB3013455 is out but not for the Windows Embedded (NT 5.1) editions. :realmad:

KB3037639

 

Now, since all updates released by MS for XP, from sometime before EoL are solely from the QFE branch, Outbreaker's finding is actually pretty good news: QFE updates are cumulative and include all previous fixes... so that whenever another win32k.sys eventually is released for POS Ready 2009, it'll actualy also contain the fix from KB3037639, so it's just a question of waiting for it. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave-H - Thanks for experiment.  Hope your test machine didn't blow up and shoot sales receipts all over the place.

 

But why am I seeing TWO slightly earlier versions of win32k.sys in my machine (XP Pro SP3 32-bit) and not just one?

 

I have win32k.sys version 5.1.2600.6648 in both C:\WINDOWS\system32 and C:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache. In both cases, its Date Modified is 10/6/2014.  So that seems to be my installed version.

 

However, there is a later win32k.sys version 5.1.2600.6712 in C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download\b801db22d4bc2b24f8383b87c3ddecaf\sp3qfe, and its Date Modified is 1/9/2015.

I wonder why that later downloaded version did not actually install into my machine.  Any thoughts?

Edited by glnz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build 6712 is the problematic one. It clearly did no install.

Build 6648 is the one I have on my machines (remember I blocked KB3013455).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that the KB article offers two files for download, KB3013455 and KB3037639, and it says to install both of them, and that it doesn't matter what order you install them in.

"There is no installation order requirement for the two updates that are discussed in this article (KB3013455 and KB3037639)."

 

As they both replace the same single system file, I find that rather odd!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Microsoft is often wrong in their KB articles. Doesn't surprise me that they got it wrong on a download page. You only need KB3037639.

As often as Microsoft updates win32k.sys for security fixes, it won't take long to get a new version. Seems to be updated every 1-2 months as it is. Whether the next new version will fix the text corruption is anybody's guess.

Edited by 5eraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same file. One is "broken" the newer one is not. Windows will detect the newer as the "latest". They're just covering their a$$.

http://www.techworm.net/2015/02/microsoft-bungles-again-this-time-with-kb-3013455-and-kb-3037639.html

Ignore the "bad" one as Dencorso said.

Also it was found that the patch does not affect the Windows 7 and 8.1 versions.
"We don't really care about anything but Win7/Win8, so we got lazy". ;) Edited by submix8c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't mean that they were exactly the same file, just different versions of the same file, which is what I should have said of course!

:lol:

I'm sure you're right about why they're offering both.

If you do the later version first, the earlier one presumably won't do anything, and if you do the earlier version first the other version will update it of course.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Most likely it's just MS being incredibly stupid as usual when they don't replace one update with a superseded one but to be absolutely sure this is in fact the case, you need to compare the inf files that sometimes add stuff to the registry besides the standard stuff that is added whenever any update is added. Extract the updates and run both the inf through a comparision program. In the area that is called addreg or something see if one has some extra stuff and also at the very bottom of the inf file they have stuck stuff before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outbreaker Instead of trying to replace the file, reverse engineer the latest patch and determine what necessary changes are required (if simple patching is possible).

 

I wish I had more free time to delve into this. (I had started reading some classic books in reversing but I'm busy with many things...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

determine what necessary changes are required (if simple patching is possible).

 

I have to say this crossed my mind as well, and I was thinking of harkaz' great patching work of the POS updates as well. Too bad you haven't got the time harkaz, of course we all understand.

Still, patching the botched update might be our only hope...

(So close, yet so far away... ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, KB3013455 -

https://support.microsoft.com/kb/3013455

says

After you install security update 3013455, you may notice some decrease in text quality in certain scenarios. The problem occurs only on systems that are running one of the following operating systems:
  • Windows Vista SP2
  • Windows Server 2008 SP2
  • Windows Server 2003 SP2

Why it didn't install (using the registry "trick"), however, is beyond me. (note - I haven't been installing POSReady, so...)

 

The above MS notation seems to go against both what is posted here and also in this link.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r29852995-KB3013455-breaks-font-rendering-on-XP-FLP-WEPOS-POS2009

AFAICT, the only way to confirm it is to install and test :unsure:

 

(Catalog is still giving error 8DDD0010 for me trying to get this file - then again I'm still at IE6.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outbreaker Instead of trying to replace the file, reverse engineer the latest patch and determine what necessary changes are required (if simple patching is possible).

 

I wish I had more free time to delve into this. (I had started reading some classic books in reversing but I'm busy with many things...)

 

The only person that comes to my mind who's capable of doing that fast enough is WildBill, supposing he finds time for it.

Otherwise, it's better to wait for the next win32k.sys in some new fix further on, because it'll sure incorporate the fonts fix, since they're now always from the QFE branch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have found a difference:

 

The order of command execution is reversed.

 

2uig1ol.jpg

Edited by harkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could run a test if you upload your modified "win32k.sys" file. ;)

Did you compare the Windows Server 2003 x86 Update KB3037639 (win32k.sys 5.2.3790.5534) with the previous Update KB3013455 (win32k.sys 5.2.3790.5513)?

Edited by Outbreaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...