RyanVM Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 , this guy reminds me of the American Idol rejects who talk about how the judges were obviously jealous of their talent and that's why they didn't make the show BTW, I'm making a CD with this just for kicks. I'll post some screenshots later EDIT #1 - Ugh, s***ty compression job on the individual files. Someone didn't use LZX:21.EDIT #2 - And who wants to take up a bet with me that these are the GDR versions of the files rather than the QFE versions?More later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Soul Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well, it kinda worked. On a fresh install, a fair number of the fixes actually didn't appear on Windows Update with only the files on the CD (no registry entries), but it wasn't perfect. Three hotfixes still showed on Windows Update in the Critical section as 0KB downloads (KB885250, KB885835, and KB885836), so apparently they do need registry entries to be properly seen.Overall, it's a pretty interesting find, but I'm going to stick with the tried and true method myself.EDIT: And no, the files are NOT in dllcache and are therefore NOT protected by Windows File Protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfm Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I just finished mine. Files are not protected. Qfecheck.exe doesn't report them because registry entries were not added. Windows update reports strange critical updates that are needed to be installed that weight 0 KB. I don't recommend this method.EDIT: I didn't saw Ryan's post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hfrfc Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Btw is the hotfix update system of nlite viable (post sp2) ?It seems to work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukar Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 I didn't say it's perfect...but takes care of most post SP2 hot fixes. I'm still working on this, and i guess the best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xp....or maybe not. I don't deny that some hotfixes requires registry entries, but 80% of them do not require it.So, 8 of 10 hot fixes would work this way which is pretty good method. It saves you a lot time of making SVCPACK thing and so...I used makecab to compress those files. This method only applies to clean Windows XP SP2 English version, and no merging SP2.cab into DRIVER.cab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radimus Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 is all of this because someone didn't want to run:REM ----- Slipstream Type 3 Hotfixes -----FOR /f %%f in ('dir /b XPType3\*.exe') DO XPType3\%%f /integrate:c:\xptemp /passive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanoll Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 I didn't say it's perfect...but takes care of most post SP2 hot fixes. I'm still working on this, and i guess the best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xp....or maybe not. I don't deny that some hotfixes requires registry entries, but 80% of them do not require it.So, 8 of 10 hot fixes would work this way which is pretty good method. It saves you a lot time of making SVCPACK thing and so...I used makecab to compress those files. This method only applies to clean Windows XP SP2 English version, and no merging SP2.cab into DRIVER.cab.so what you're saying is that I'm right in the WU doesn't properly detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid?There already is a excellent pack for hotfixes by RyanVM. nLite also automates the process (for post-sp2 hotfixes).Also...best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xpHow is that the best option? I take it you're meaning to replace the files in the SP2 network install, then integrate the files? SP2 integrate SHOULD detect the improper files and error out (CRC checking) and if it doesn't, you're back to the problem you currently have. WU doesn't detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukar Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 I didn't say it's perfect...but takes care of most post SP2 hot fixes. I'm still working on this, and i guess the best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xp....or maybe not. I don't deny that some hotfixes requires registry entries, but 80% of them do not require it.So, 8 of 10 hot fixes would work this way which is pretty good method. It saves you a lot time of making SVCPACK thing and so...I used makecab to compress those files. This method only applies to clean Windows XP SP2 English version, and no merging SP2.cab into DRIVER.cab.so what you're saying is that I'm right in the WU doesn't properly detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid?There already is a excellent pack for hotfixes by RyanVM. nLite also automates the process (for post-sp2 hotfixes).Also...best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xpHow is that the best option? I take it you're meaning to replace the files in the SP2 network install, then integrate the files? SP2 integrate SHOULD detect the improper files and error out (CRC checking) and if it doesn't, you're back to the problem you currently have. WU doesn't detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid.The are valid and Windows XP doesn't make problems with it, neither there are strange WU hotfixes of 0kb. Windows File Protection box does not pop up during installation, and there is no reason for it since those are Microsoft Certified Files, not some hack. If you're getting problems, I would check out a copy of your Windows.As I said, after applying the patch 5 hotfixes remains unpatched.Right now I'm testing out something, and I'm hoping that there will be 0 wu updates after installation Stay tuned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukar Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 I didn't say it's perfect...but takes care of most post SP2 hot fixes. I'm still working on this, and i guess the best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xp....or maybe not. I don't deny that some hotfixes requires registry entries, but 80% of them do not require it.So, 8 of 10 hot fixes would work this way which is pretty good method. It saves you a lot time of making SVCPACK thing and so...I used makecab to compress those files. This method only applies to clean Windows XP SP2 English version, and no merging SP2.cab into DRIVER.cab.so what you're saying is that I'm right in the WU doesn't properly detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid?There already is a excellent pack for hotfixes by RyanVM. nLite also automates the process (for post-sp2 hotfixes).Also...best option would be to integrate those files into sp2 installation folder, and then integrate sp2 into windows xpHow is that the best option? I take it you're meaning to replace the files in the SP2 network install, then integrate the files? SP2 integrate SHOULD detect the improper files and error out (CRC checking) and if it doesn't, you're back to the problem you currently have. WU doesn't detect the install, and WFP doesn't see them as valid.I'm sorry i didn't see you message again... You're wrong about SP2. That's what I'm doing now...It didn't get any error message. It's not about version of file, but it's about certification of file, of course if we are talking about two same files "technically". One of them is certified and the other not. The only certified file is going to pass sort of file verification.As long as the file is certified it's gonna be cool. If you put two same files and one is a newer than the other any Microsoft applciation will install a newer one. This is the concept which Microsoft holds since the beginning.For example: I just replaced messenger executable file and repacked and insterted in sp2, and after that I integrate sp2 and everything went smooth! Now, I'm installing windows xp to see is everything ok as well as for other hotfixes except one for .NET framework which is not really windows update fix.I'm gonna soon post some screenshots...I apologize for two posts...i didn't quite read your comment about SP2 thing...I appreciate every feedback... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shark007 Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 This method of updating post SP2 is quite interesting and effective.Thru my own testing using this sort of method and my own files which i snagged from the i386 folder after running /integrate on the fixes and using the files in yet another untouched i386 installation folder with NO svcpack file/folder to test.i've been abale to install ALL post SP2 updates except for KB885836.This single update KB885836, i still install with /integrate and have NO critical updates @WU. (mrt.exe is run during setup to satisfy WU also)EDIT: mrt.exe uses /q for a silent installationlukar, thanks for bringing this to my (our) attention.Shark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanVM Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 lukar, don't you think you're reinventing the wheel a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukar Posted February 14, 2005 Author Share Posted February 14, 2005 I don't think I'm reinventing the wheel, because my method is *cat, svcpack.inf free...This is updated package. It contains hotfix for windows messenger (mmssetup.cab -> I didn't repack this but directly injected the new windows messenger executable file), and also WMP10 ( I used wmp1.1 script ). It's tested and it's working....http://bis.midco.net/lradunovic/HFSP2.zipIt applies to Windows XP Pro, Home SP2 English version.Replace all files in I386, or you can directly inject the files via Magic ISO, so you don't need to unpack your image and create a new one.The reason why KB885835 and KB885836 do not work is that some of those files are located in more than one location. So I guess WU checks the certain cabs as well I will sort this out by tomorrow, hopefully... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanoll Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 The reason why KB885835 and KB885836 do not work is that some of those files are located in more than one location. So I guess WU checks the certain cabs as wellThat's alittle hard as the CABs aren't copied over.As alittle test, see if MS's Baseline Security Analyzer shows anything missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shark007 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 As alittle test, see if MS's Baseline Security Analyzer shows anything missingAlrighty then... This method intrigued me enough to delv into it even deeper.Attached is a list of files I 'simply' dropped into the i386 folder.These files were acquired from 2 sources.many of the files were taken directly from Ryan's RVMUpdatePack1.2b1Full.cabthis covered alot of nice things like WU being already up to date, etc.I also ran Ryan's _cabupdate.exe to update the driver.cabMany thanks to Ryan for sharing his hard work.the remainder of the files as i mentioned earlier in this post were takenfrom i386 as hotfixes updated them using /integrate option.A list of hotfixes i used for this is also attatched.I then used a fresh copy of SP2, added all the files mentioned above to thethe i386 folder and used /integrate on 'one single' hotfix [KB885836.exe]I did nothing more than overwrite the existing files in the i386 folder.I also have the mrt.exe tool run during setup.Windows Update shows NO critical updates.oh, i also remove windows messenger with nlite.The Baseline Security Analyzer results are also attached.The one failure it reports 'MS05-009' is due to the fact that i 'partially install'windows messenger 5.1 to get the handwriting feature's in MSN 7.0 working.So it wants me to reinstall windows messenger 5.1Shark 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