dencorso Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 This problem occurs on Windows 2000 as I'm running it in VMware Player right now. I'm also wondering if this problem also occurs on Windows XP x64 and even Windows Embedded POSReady 2009. It sure occurs with Server 2003, as can be found posted elsewhere, over the 'net. Then again, after I downgraded those two files MU started working again in the two XP machines I hadn't yet given this month's updates, so I got them up-to-date. After rebooting I've checked and the muauth.cab with the <ExpiryDate>2014-11 remains there. I think that's not the right lead to pursue, right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) This problem occurs on Windows 2000 as I'm running it in VMware Player right now. I'm also wondering if this problem also occurs on Windows XP x64 and even Windows Embedded POSReady 2009.It sure occurs with Server 2003, as can be found posted elsewhere, over the 'net.Then again, after I downgraded those two files MU started working again in the two XP machines I hadn't yet given this month's updates, so I got them up-to-date. After rebooting I've checked and the muauth.cab with the <ExpiryDate>2014-11 remains there. I think that's not the right lead to pursue, right now. That's what I've been thinking. This issue is not related to unsupported OSes or the Windows Update website itself, but the expiration date of the files in MUAUTH.CAB and AUTH.CAB. Edited November 20, 2014 by ppgrainbow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 That's what I've been thinking. This issue is not related to unsupported OSes or the Windows Update website itself, but the expiration date of the files in MUAUTH.CAB and AUTH.CAB.Sure it's not related to unsupported OSes, but it's clearly related to the sudden deprecation of muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257, not at all to MUAUTH.CAB and AUTHCAB.CAB, despite the 2014-11 <ExpiryDate> inside one or both of them.And, then again, why in the world did muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257 get suddenly deprecated at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 That's what I've been thinking. This issue is not related to unsupported OSes or the Windows Update website itself, but the expiration date of the files in MUAUTH.CAB and AUTHCAB.CAB.Sure it's not related to unsupported OSes, but it's clearly related to the sudden deprecation of muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257, not at all to MUAUTH.CAB and AUTHCAB.CAB, despite the 2014-11 <ExpiryDate> inside one or both of them.And, then again, why in the world did muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257 get suddenly deprecated at all? I don't know why this would happen. A lot of customers who are still using Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 aren't too happy that they can no longer install updates due to the sudden deprecation of muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outbreaker Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) The POSReady 2009 does not have this problem and it also has no auth.cab, muauth.cab, muweb.cab or muweb.dll file. The wuweb.dll file version is 7.6.7600.257 Edited November 20, 2014 by Outbreaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) The POSReady 2009 does not have this problem and it also has no MUAUTH.CAB or AUTH.CAB file. That's odd. Only Windows 2000, Windows XP and Server 2003 have this problem. And as far as I know, tampering the expiration date to 2099 doesn't work, because Windows Update will redownload the CABs containing the original authorization.xml files. I'm wondering if there is a solution to this issue. Currently, Windows 2000 has 7.6.7600.256 of wuweb.dll, Windows XP has version 7.6.7600.257 of wuweb.dll. Neither versions of the wuweb.dll worked. Edited November 20, 2014 by ppgrainbow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The POSReady 2009 does not have this problem and it also has no AUTH.CAB, MUAUTH.CAB or muweb.cab file. The wuweb.dll file version is 7.6.7600.257 Of course! Wuweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257 wasn't deprecated, only Muweb.dll v. 7.6.7600.257 was, suddenly, and for no apparent reason.However, one would face the issue only if one had already opted for MU instead of WU (which is the default also for POSReady 2009), hence no issue would be detected for users of a reasonably standard POSReady 2009 setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outbreaker Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Okay i now used Microsoft Update instead of Windows Updated and now i get also the same error on POSReady 2009. Nice done MickeySoft. Edited November 21, 2014 by Outbreaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) I think that there is a problem with Microsoft Update itself! I can't believe that even POSReady 2009 users can't even update using Microsoft Update at all. Update: I solved the problem by using v7.6.7600.256 version of muweb.dll. I'll check the Windows XP VM sometime this weekend and go from there. Edited November 22, 2014 by ppgrainbow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) The first one seems to have no effect on WU-MU. MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll -> 7.4.7057.248muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.256As indicated here. downgrade muweb.dll to r256 and WU&&MU work without delete additional file!!1!However, The Microsoft Update Catalog does *not* work. It says "Support has ended".@dencorso, do you, by change have the POSReady Reg Edit installed?(Ref. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173049-windowsmicrosoft-update-not-working-on-windows-2000xp2003/#entry1089303 )ARGGG! The DIRECT URL works but THIS one doesn't (does in 2K3): http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=8973Also, please note there are TWO v249 MUCatalog offenders. The following are the ones referenced::: v248: 7.4.7057.248 (winmain_wtr_wsus3sp2_muv4_win7(oobla).110208-1203) 142 KB (145,688 bytes):: v249: 7.4.7057.249 (winmain_wtr_mu_win8_murc(oobla).120501-0858) 137 KB (140,376 bytes):: v249: 7.4.7057.249 (winmain_wtr_mu_win8(oobla).130620-1021) 137 KB (140,456 bytes) <-LatestGuess I'll have to *continue* revisiting the v256/v257 WindowsUpdate BAT file. BRB (eventually) to report back after "fixed"... Forgot to mention... check your "dllcache" folder as well. Edited November 21, 2014 by submix8c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egrabrych Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) to solve the problem temporarily, please use file versionMicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll -> 7.4.7057.248muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.256 Microsoft Update Catalog in my computer works correctly also with the MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll file in the version 7.4.7057.249.To run Microsoft Update is not needed MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dll file. Edited November 22, 2014 by egrabrych Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) The downgraded version of muweb.dll (Microsoft Update) will only work until 3 December 2017 at 11:59:25.79 AM PST. Any attempts to access Microsoft Update after this point will throw a 0x80072F05 error! At that time, Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 will still be supported, but how will users be able to access the site if the date is set past the expiration date. I had to set the date to 2017-12-03 to reflect this and then revert back to today's date. This was tested under Windows 2000, btw. Edited November 22, 2014 by ppgrainbow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) Yes, I "kind of" said that. The first one seems to have no effect on WU-MU. MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dllHere is the MS article that has a Direct UpdateCatalog Link in it (as given by dencorso).Again, the link I gave with "LinkID=" in it does *not* work. That one (apparently) directs to a script that check the OS.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323166 To clarify:1 - Windows Update is to get *only* Windows Updates for *your* OS2 - Microsoft Update is to get *all* Microsoft Updates for *your* OS/MS-Software3 - Microsoft Update Catalog (aka Windows Update Catalog) is to *search* for *any* OS/MS-Softwarex - Office Update is (now) obsolete, but *some* can still be found on the Office site for direct download. The whole problem appears when *before* the change #2 website that it *failed* because of "muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.257". Regressing to v256 (apparently) "cures" it and as well allows "undoing" MU to use just WU again (if you desire). There *is* "some sort of" a problem with the XML's dates and the Redirects found inside the "WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe" v256(built)/v257(my hybrid) build. You see, when using the *original* "v248" directly from MS, WU does *not* work, so we resorted to a "built" one. *However* auto-updates *upgraded* module(s) to "v257" which caused the problem. Do read the whole thread and all embedded links. HTH @ppgrainbow - DUDE!!! <IssuedDate>2013-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</IssuedDate> <ExpiryDate>2017-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</ExpiryDate>Did you *not* see that above??? how will users be able to access the site if the date is set past the expiration dateYou *are* aware that the files get "updated" from time-to-time, right? That's *exactly* why we got "bit" at an inopportune time. Edited November 22, 2014 by submix8c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppgrainbow Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) Yes, I "kind of" said that. The first one seems to have no effect on WU-MU. MicrosoftUpdateCatalogWebControl.dllHere is the MS article that has a Direct UpdateCatalog Link in it (as given by dencorso).Again, the link I gave with "LinkID=" in it does *not* work. That one (apparently) directs to a script that check the OS.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323166 To clarify:1 - Windows Update is to get *only* Windows Updates for *your* OS2 - Microsoft Update is to get *all* Microsoft Updates for *your* OS/MS-Software3 - Microsoft Update Catalog (aka Windows Update Catalog) is to *search* for *any* OS/MS-Softwarex - Office Update is (now) obsolete, but *some* can still be found on the Office site for direct download. The whole problem appears when *before* the change #2 website that it *failed* because of "muweb.dll -> 7.6.7600.257". Regressing to v256 (apparently) "cures" it and as well allows "undoing" MU to use just WU again (if you desire). There *is* "some sort of" a problem with the XML's dates and the Redirects found inside the "WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe" v256(built)/v257(my hybrid) build. You see, when using the *original* "v248" directly from MS, WU does *not* work, so we resorted to a "built" one. *However* auto-updates *upgraded* module(s) to "v257" which caused the problem. Do read the whole thread and all embedded links. HTH @ppgrainbow - DUDE!!! <IssuedDate>2013-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</IssuedDate> <ExpiryDate>2017-12-03T11:59:25.7927833-08:00</ExpiryDate>Did you *not* see that above??? how will users be able to access the site if the date is set past the expiration dateYou *are* aware that the files get "updated" from time-to-time, right? That's *exactly* why we got "bit" at an inopportune time. I already got it. Edited November 22, 2014 by ppgrainbow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-H Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Surely Microsoft haven't done this deliberately.The Windows Update site for Windows 98SE worked for a full five years after support for the OS ended.Anyway, automatic updates seem to still work, so there's absolutely no reason why the Microsoft Update site shouldn't!I think this is just an oversight, and once it's brought to their attention MS will fix it.After all, they do have corporate users paying them to still support Windows XP as far as I remember, so they will certainly want it working again! 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