XPSP3_QFE_UpdatePack for Windows XP Post-SP3 20180109

Windows XP Professional Update Pack discussion.
Post Reply
masterm
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:31 am
Location: South Africa

Post by masterm » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:30 pm

I integrated SP3 and then this pack with the following addons using RVMi 1.6
- 5er_KB893056_SP3_Addon.7z
- 5er_MSSignedThemes_Addon_v6.1_x86.7z
- WGA_Validation_AddOn_1.9.40.0-2_-_redxii.7z
- CmdOpenAddon-2.0.3.7z

I also updated the deploy tools with SP3 update and used WMP11 intergrator.

After installing the following error appeared in the

Code: Select all

Windows Setup encountered non-fatal errors during installation. Please check the setuperr.log found in your Windows directory for more information.
In the error log the following showed:

Code: Select all

Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll] is not signed properly
by Microsoft.  This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version.
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file.
I got this error on Virtualbox and vmware as well as a proper install. The following updates also showed eventhough they are in the pack

Code: Select all

KB971961 and KB963707
I have also found problems with my Lexmark 2500 printer driver which I did not have before. The system hangs up for a minute after a reboot. This is gone when the driver is installed.

Event viewer details from driver problem:

Code: Select all

Eventid: 7009 Source: Service Control Manager
Timeout (30000 milliseconds) waiting for the lxddCATSCustConnectService service to connect.

Eventid: 7000 Source: Service Control Manager
The lxddCATSCustConnectService service failed to start due to the following error: 
The service did not respond to the start or control request in a timely fashion. 

Eventid: 7022 Source: Service Control Manager
The Windows Image Acquisition (WIA) service hung on starting.

Quiet a few of my other software also has stranger behavior.

Made a new disk incase the integration went wrong. Same scenario as above.

User avatar
mr_smartepants
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

Post by mr_smartepants » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:17 pm

masterm wrote: - WGA_Validation_AddOn_1.9.40.0-2_-_redxii.7z
This addon is not needed since it's components are already included in this updatepack.
Sounds like a botched integration. Check your MD5 hash of the update pack. Redownload if different from the first post.
Try without any addons to see if you have the same problem.
Image
Some heroes don't wear capes, they wear Kevlar and dog-tags!

User avatar
dumpydooby
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:09 am

Post by dumpydooby » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:13 pm

I found that CDIMAGE.EXE was giving me shit.

I'm now creating all of my ISOs using RVMi's internal application and switches.

I could ISO a directory with CDIMAGE.EXE, and I'd get weird errors during setup (similar to those in his post). ISO the same exact directory with RVMi and the errors were gone. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I don't care to figure it out. Just throwing this out there in case he's using CDIMAGE.EXE.

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Re: Problem with MU after deploying update pack

Post by user_hidden » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:20 pm

deadbugx wrote:I've taken WXP SP3 and integrated this pack (WindowsXP Post-SP3 Update Pack (QFE) Version 1.1.0 20090908) using v1.6 of RVMi.

I've then slipstream WMP (using boooggy's slipstreamer) and IE7 (using nlite).

Testing the install in a VM is fine except that Microsoft Update doesn't work. It reports error code 0x800B0100. I've tried regsvr32 on softpub.dll, wintrust.dll, initpki.dll and mssip32.dll (as suggested by a KB article) and also I've stopped and restarted the crypto service (as suggested elsewhere) but with no luck.

Is anyone else seeing this problem?
WU/MU should work fine.

if you had a clean source + my updatepack + boogey's WMP11 and you have this error perhaps try another integration using RVMi v1.6.1 b2.1
Last edited by user_hidden on Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

newsposter
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:31 am

Post by newsposter » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:22 pm

x2 DD. I long ago gave up using cdimage.exe for anything. I create the .ISO images with ImgBurn (using a saved template for consistency) and use it for eventual burning as well.

User avatar
beats
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:11 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by beats » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:28 pm

I use Nero with a template for ISO images (v6 that is, anything after Nero 6 is crap IMHO).

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:33 pm

masterm wrote:I integrated SP3 and then this pack with the following addons using RVMi 1.6
- 5er_KB893056_SP3_Addon.7z
- 5er_MSSignedThemes_Addon_v6.1_x86.7z
- WGA_Validation_AddOn_1.9.40.0-2_-_redxii.7z
- CmdOpenAddon-2.0.3.7z
DO NOT USE:

WGA_Validation_AddOn_1.9.40.0-2_-_redxii.7z = already in the pack
5er_KB893056_SP3_Addon.7z = this is not intended for SP3, it is for SP2 only

try again with a clean source and ommit those 2 addons and report back.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:11 pm

You're mistaken, user_hidden. I made both an SP2 version and an SP3 version of the addon for KB893056. The SP3 version only includes the registry entry to activate the hotfix that is included in XP SP3, as stated in the addon's release post. ;):P

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:21 pm

5eraph wrote:You're mistaken, user_hidden. I made both an SP2 version and an SP3 version of the addon for KB893056. The SP3 version only includes the registry entry to activate the hotfix that is included in XP SP3, as stated in the addon's release post. ;):P
sorry 5eraph, i was reffering to the actual update as i did not look at the addon at all. love these hybrids :)

in any event i think he should not include WGA, use a clean verified source + RVMi 1.61b2.1 as it seems to have cleared many issues.

masterm
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:31 am
Location: South Africa

Post by masterm » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:38 am

Thanks guys. Will create a new disk when I get home 2nite.
Sounds like a botched integration. Check your MD5 hash of the update pack. Redownload if different from the first post.
Try without any addons to see if you have the same problem.
The MD5 hash matches the one here mr_smartepants, so no error there

[/quote]

deadbugx
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:00 am

Re: Problem with MU after deploying update pack

Post by deadbugx » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:10 pm

user_hidden wrote:
if you had a clean source + my updatepack + boogey's WMP11 and you have this error perhaps try another integration using RVMi v1.6.1 b2.1
Thanks for the pointer to the beta RVMi - that may come in handy.

A few ISOs later I think I've tracked it down. I was still integrating WMP 11 5.0.2919.6304 via boooggy's slipstreamer. This was fine with RyanVM's last pack, but now I need to step up to 6.0.5489.0.

Everything is fine once more (or, it was, until I decided to throw a few more KB fixes in with IE7 ... now IE won't start ... but at least I know where the problem lies so a few more ISO tests should sort that out).

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Missing files issue - fp4autl.dll required for MSOffice 2007 install

Post by Bhishmar » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:08 am

A missing file issue, in the SP3 Updatepack is discussed below. This was uncovered while attempting to install the MS Office 2007 EE.
The Office setup program returned an error as follows:-
The Windows Installer service cannot update one or more protected Windows files. SFP Error: 21.
List of protected files:
c:\program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\40\bin\fp4autl.dll
On googling this error I got few pages mentioning this issue and throwing up a solution.
http://www.benshoemate.com/2007/12/17/o ... d-windows/
http://forums.techarena.in/office-setup ... ost2350000

The issue was reportedly due to the non-availability of the file "fp4autl.dll" at the required location mentioned above, in the windows installation. In the original (unmodified) Windows-XP-SP3 installation-source this file is available within the i386\FP40EXT.CAB file, & a normal windows install places this file in the appropriate folder mentione above.

When you integrate this QFE update pack [ver-1.0.8], even though the install-source still contains the fp40ext.cab file, unfortunately after the windows installation, the required file "fp4autl.dll" is not extracted & placed inside the appropriate location:
"c:\program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\40\bin\"/b].

Can others confirm this issue? Just see inside your "c:\program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\40\bin\" folder, & report presence/absence of the file fp4autl.dll.

I want to know whether this is a generic issue with this update pack or, it is caused due to specific issues in my system configuration/ update packs ?


My Configuration:
Used Win-XP-SP3 source, UpdatePack-ver-1.0.8 with RVM-Integrator-b1.6.1b2.1

Addons:
RVMAddons_1.9.0.7z
CmdOpenAddon-2.0.3.7z
IE8-Addon-ENU-Sereby-v1.0.7.7z
YumeYao_WMP11_Addon_ENU_V3_2_0.7z

regards

User avatar
yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:26 am

@Bhishmar:
check windows\setuperr.log. is there any error information other than xxxxxx.xxx cannot be registered? I expect there must be something like "setup aborted" or "setup terminated", etc. If there is, please post setupACT.log somewhere, it's helpful to diagnostic a setup.
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by Bhishmar » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

yumeyao wrote:@Bhishmar:
check windows\setuperr.log. is there any error information other than xxxxxx.xxx cannot be registered? I expect there must be something like "setup aborted" or "setup terminated", etc. If there is, please post setupACT.log somewhere, it's helpful to diagnostic a setup.
Thanks Yumeyao
There are no significant errors in the "setuperr.log", other than routine 'cannot be registered items".

But "setupapi.log" showed some items like:
[2009/08/29 14:31:18 512.1]
#-199 Executing "\??\C:\WINDOWS\system32\winlogon.exe" with command line: winlogon.exe
#-167 SPFILENOTIFY_NEEDMEDIA: Tag = "fp40ext.cab", Description= "Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 CD",

SourcePath = "F:\i386", SourceFile = "fp4autl.dll", Flags = 0x00000000.
#E169 SPFILENOTIFY_NEEDMEDIA: returned FILEOP_ABORT. Error 1223: The operation was canceled by the user.
#W187 Install failed, attempting to restore original files.

[2009/08/29 14:31:22 512.6]
#-199 Executing "\??\C:\WINDOWS\system32\winlogon.exe" with command line: winlogon.exe
#-167 SPFILENOTIFY_NEEDMEDIA: Tag = "fp40ext.cab", Description= "Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 CD",

SourcePath = "F:\i386", SourceFile = "fp4autl.dll", Flags = 0x00000000.
#E169 SPFILENOTIFY_NEEDMEDIA: returned FILEOP_ABORT. Error 21: The device is not ready.
#W187 Install failed, attempting to restore original files.
This was repeated 3 4 times.
I have also attached the setupact.log contents:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a0b22af ... act_log_7z

But i would like to know, whether you have the file "fp4autl.dll" inside your "program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\40\bin" folder, after windows installation-complete with user-hidden latest update-packs?

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Re: Missing files issue - fp4autl.dll required for MSOffice 2007 install

Post by user_hidden » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:50 pm

Bhishmar wrote:A missing file issue, in the SP3 Updatepack is discussed below. This was uncovered while attempting to install the MS Office 2007 EE.
The Office setup program returned an error as follows:-
the file is in the correct places after installation.
this update pack does not touch FP40EXT.CAB at all before, during or after integration.

User avatar
yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:58 pm

I use my update pack for my Chinese OS, together with some other addons, no such issue. Only that I noticed you integrated my WMP11 addon, so I'd view whether this addon was causing problems together with other addons(although I don't expect this).

there's no error in the log, but fp40ext component is not processed. So I guess maybe you have disabled it in winnt.sif, or by other means.
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Missing files issue - fp4autl.dll required for MSOffice 2007 install

Post by Bhishmar » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:34 pm

user_hidden wrote:
Bhishmar wrote:A missing file issue, in the SP3 Updatepack is discussed below. This was uncovered while attempting to install the MS Office 2007 EE.
The Office setup program returned an error as follows:-
the file is in the correct places after installation.
this update pack does not touch FP40EXT.CAB at all before, during or after integration.
Thanks user_hidden for the input.

I assume what u are indeed indicating in your reply is that "fp4autl.dll" is placed correctly in its destination folder "program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\40\bin", after the windows setup. Since, as I myself have already pointed in my original post that, there is no issue with "fp40ext.cab". Both in the original xp-sp3 source as well as after addon-pack integration, this file is available in the i386 folder.

The problem, is only after a windows setup, using the upd-pack integrated installation source.

I think this issue could be due to some interactions between different addon-packs, as indicated by yumeyao, since I have not done any disabling in winnt.sif.

I think I have to do some more experiments like disabling addons one by one & installations to pinpoint the problem now!

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:09 pm

@Bhishmar

yes the file fp4autl.dll after install is in the correct destination folder.

there have been some reports of Sereby IE8 addon causing some issues with my pack. Onepiece IE8 does not have issues with my pack.

masterm
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:31 am
Location: South Africa

Post by masterm » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:55 am

Quick Update guys!

I used RVMi v1.6.1 b2.1 to integrate this time with the following:
- 5er_KB893056_SP3_Addon.7z
- 5er_MSSignedThemes_Addon_v6.1_x86.7z
- CmdOpenAddon-2.0.3.7z

Used WMP11 intergrator.

Still have the setup error

Code: Select all

Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll] is not signed properly 
by Microsoft.  This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version. 
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file. 
When I go into user accounts I get a script error and get prompted if I want to debug.

Misisng updates still show:

Code: Select all

KB971961 and KB963707 
Various software still behaving strange.

Decide to a test by a creating a new install using Ryan's pack from January and then run windows update.

Only one issue found. Media player 11 crash on first use thereafter it was fine.

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

What are the options for a Reliable IE8 addon nowadays?

Post by Bhishmar » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:53 am

user_hidden wrote:@Bhishmar
yes the file fp4autl.dll after install is in the correct destination folder.

there have been some reports of Sereby IE8 addon causing some issues with my pack. Onepiece IE8 does not have issues with my pack.
Yes, I also surmised as much, though did not want to point fingers without specific evidence.

I did go with Sereby's IE8 addon initially, instead of OnePiece's since I was looking for a more conservative & hence more reliable approach.

By that definition, onepeice's IEx addon, did not qualify, (atleast a few months back) since his approach is anything but conservative, in my opinion. (No offence to onepiece, only differing perceptions of mindset). I might be wrong here, and of course his addons have matured tremendously and become more reliable over a period, especially last six months. It ought tobe, with so much popularity & more number of users, providing corrective feedback.

Also Sereby is not showing much interest nowadays, to update his english IE8 addon, possibly another ofshoot of the fact that Onepiece's one has matured enough to fill that (conservative) gap. And if I remember correctly other good IEx addon makers like Yumeyao have left space to avoid stepping on the toes of others like Sereby.

I am aware of many in this forum with a conservative mindset like me, & would like to know their view points & which IE8 addon they go for now.

Probably it is time for me to switch to onepiece IE8 addon.
regards.

User avatar
beats
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:11 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by beats » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:17 am

Take a look at Onepiece's Universal IE8 Addon Creator. This way, you can keep your IE8 addon as conservative (or bleeding edge) as you like. ;)

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:24 am

masterm wrote:
Still have the setup error

Various software still behaving strange.
try integrating My pack only with NO other addons.
make sure your source is clean and untouched.
report back....then start adding addons 1 by 1 and see where your conflict is.

what you are describing has not been reported by anyone else and many
people use this pack and would have spoken up long ago including myself.

User avatar
yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:10 am

@Bhishmar
I think onepiece's IE8 Addon is nothing different than sereby's except for an ARP entry and different file copying handling.

IE8 is different from WMP, or update pack, all the entries needed are obvious in original IE8.inf from IE8 Installer, so there's no approach to make something different.

When I was first working on the IE8 addon, I did nothing else than Onepiece or sereby(assembling files, and copying registries from IE8.inf), that was the first release of my "clean" style IE8 addon. Later a friend asked me for a setuperr-free addon, so I used MrNxDmx's trick of replacing files and accomplished the "NoSetupErr" style. Yet still the differences among mine, sereby's and onepiece's are so slight that you can't feel.(If you disable all my IE8 tweak entries first) That's why I don't release an English IE8 addon.

But If you have a glance at my WMP addon, together with onepiece's and boooggy's(just the modified INFs), you'll see that's different in many degrees. Each of us made some unique tricks upon WMP addon. Once a user compares the installation result, there will be significant differences in registry and files -- although there will not be any different other than tweaks when the user is using the WMP.

My beliefs for making addons is to keep install result and install process as clean as possible. Keeping install result clean may be reflected on my WMP addons, and keeping install process clean can be reflected on every addon I make. When I refer to install process, I mean "not writting registry values twice or even more times, leave as less temporary files as possible, and such things". This is not necessary for the end-user, but this makes the install script readable and easy to understand, therefore it's useful for an addon developer if they want to learn something from my addons.
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by Bhishmar » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:56 am

@Yumeyao
Thanks for the feedback. It is illuminating.
yumeyao wrote:My beliefs for making addons is to keep install result and install process as clean as possible. Keeping install result clean may be reflected on my WMP addons, and keeping install process clean can be reflected on every addon I make. When I refer to install process, I mean "not writting registry values twice or even more times, leave as less temporary files as possible, and such things". This is not necessary for the end-user, but this makes the install script readable and easy to understand, therefore it's useful for an addon developer if they want to learn something from my addons.
This is what I could understand, and appreciate as others.
Keeping a structured configuration control on your addon products, is also something which I find commendable. (post version-numbers, changelog, dates MD5-hash for data-integrity-chk etc).

User avatar
galileo
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC USA

Post by galileo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:38 am

@yumeyao
yumeyao wrote:@Bhishmar
I think onepiece's IE8 Addon is nothing different than sereby's except for an ARP entry and different file copying handling.
FYI: I have tried both the OP and Sereby IE8 addons with user_hidden's UP - using winnt32 installs. The OP addon works every time and Sereby's fails every time with an INF file error (the Line 0 error). Both 5eraph and I have attempted to get to the root of this and have had no luck at all (some of that effort can be found in posts both here and over @ Siginet's forum).

So, whatever the differences are between their integration methods, minor or not, the results are major...in fact, the results are fatal for the Sereby IE8 when installing using winnt32.

I would be interested in trying out your IE8 addon - if there is an English version....as my Chinese is a little, umm, shall we say "rusty" these days...:wink:...I will try out your WMP addon too.

BTW: Glad to see that you are back...you were MIA for quite a while.

galileo

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:14 pm

Yup. ;)

Sereby uses a different method of adding registry entries, which seems to cause problems with MSDN XP SP3 sources.

User avatar
dumpydooby
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:09 am

Post by dumpydooby » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:30 pm

5eraph wrote:Yup. ;)

Sereby uses a different method of adding registry entries, which seems to cause problems with MSDN XP SP3 sources.
I haven't looked at the addon at all, but if he's putting the registry entries in an INF to be processed during Textmode's HiveInfs routine, then I might be able to help troubleshoot. I just recently created an addon for a defrag program, and I used that method to integrate some driver registry entries.

Do you happen to recall if that's what he was doing?


edit--
I just looked at it. I'll take the discussion to his thread.

war59312
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:11 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:12 am

Image

Not sure what is causing this, but I get it after I added your pack..

Which then sadly causes a blue screen a few minutes later.

Image

It never gets past 13 minutes phase.
God Bless America

User avatar
ricktendo64
Posts: 3213
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:27 am
Location: Honduras

Post by ricktendo64 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:36 am

That same thing happened to ppl with my pack, all that fixed it was to add a dirid/path to the file

Before (broken)

Code: Select all

[RootCerts.T13.RunCmds]
rootsupd /q
After (fixed)

Code: Select all

[RootCerts.T13.RunCmds]
%10%\rootsupd.exe /q
I have no idea what they added/removed for this not to work normal for them, I never had the problem myself but from getting their last session.ini I was able to replicate it

So just to be safe red, add the path to all t13 executables (tzchange, rootsup, resetwmi, fontreg, etc) for rare instances like this user is experiencing and it should be solved

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:32 am

war59312 wrote:Not sure what is causing this, but I get it after I added your pack..

Which then sadly causes a blue screen a few minutes later.

It never gets past 13 minutes phase.

could you list what addons you are using.
i would presume during integration something is breaking the t13 stage.

@ricktendo64
updated....

adric
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:51 am

Windows File Protection Error

Post by adric » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:44 pm

After installing installing XP SP3 with the following update pack

XPSP3_QFE_UpdatePack_1.1.0_20090908.7z

integrated with RVMi 1.6.1b21, I receive the following error message during the last part of Windows setup:

Windows File Protection: Files that are required for windows to run properly have been replaced by unknown versions; Windows needs to restore these files to function properly.

The message does not say which file(s) it wants to replace. It's telling my to insert the SP3 CD. Anyone know what the problem is?

Edit:
this is from the setuperr.log in the Windows directory:

Error:
Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll] is not signed properly
by Microsoft. This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version.
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file.

***

Error:
Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\rshx32.dll] is not signed properly
by Microsoft. This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version.
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file.

***

Error:
Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\syssetup.dll] is not signed properly
by Microsoft. This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version.
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file.

***



Al

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:38 pm

@ adric

msxml3.dll is signed by KB955069.cat file version 8.100.1048.0

rshx32.dll and syssetup.dll are both not part of the updatepack.

User avatar
DaRk MaDnEsS
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Port Said,Egypt

Post by DaRk MaDnEsS » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:00 pm

seems that the issue you did something when you disabled the Windows File Protection

you broke something

try to start with a clean cd and then

make it only with this update back and then integrate and see

then start to integrate addons after that

adric
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:51 am

Windows file Protection Error

Post by adric » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:46 pm

Ok, I did a clean SP3 install using only the QFE_UpdatePack. I am not seeing a WFP pop-up during the installation as previously, but the setuperr.log still shows the following entry:


Error:
Setup detected that the system file named [c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll] is not signed properly
by Microsoft. This file could not be restored to the correct Microsoft version.
Use the SFC utility to verify the integrity of the file.

***
I ran SFC /scannow and still no WFP pop-ups, but a DLLcache that went from 80 to 400+MB containing all the files that were verified which I assume is what sfc does .

I looked at the event viewer log and saw these two entries:

Windows File Protection scan found that the system file c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll has a bad
signature. This file was restored to the original version to maintain system
stability. The file version of the system file is 8.100.1048.0.

The protected system file c:\windows\system32\msxml3.dll could not be restored to its original, valid version.
The file version of the bad file is 8.100.1048.0

The specific error code is 0x800b0100 [No signature was present in the subject.
].

I ran the install from CD.

I don't know why msxml3.dll is still considered bad, and why I am not getting a WFP pop-up. .Can WPF be turned off during install?

Al

adric
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:51 am

msxml3.dll

Post by adric » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:57 am

@user_hidden

I downloaded the WindowsXP-KB955069-x86-ENU.exe from Msoft and compared the CAT and DLL file with what you have in your updatepack. The cat files are the same but the msxml3.dll is different from the one i got from Msoft. They both show the same version number, but the files sizes and date modified are different..

file size Msoft = 1,081 KB compared to 1,095 KB
Date Modified = 4/9/2008 19:12 as compared to 8/9/2008 19:44

Where did you get this file from?

I believe Windows file protection is correct in what it is saying or maybe you can tell me what is going on.

Al.

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:50 am

@ Adric

you are correct :oops:

dunno how or where the file changed but locally it is correct.
next pack will not have the sfc issue for you.

soporific
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:10 am

feedback

Post by soporific » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:39 pm

Hi user_hidden,

Thanks for this update pack, i am using it instead of the RyanVM Pack and Xable's update pack. Yours is actually updated reasonably frequently (thanks anyway RyanVM) and actually installs everything correctly (thanks anyway Xable).

Please have a look at these updates:

kb938464 (your pack only has the 1st edition)
kb957579 (replaces kb956803)

I may have others, if no reply i will update this post. Thanks!

Soporific.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:47 pm

KB938464-v2 is not necessary if the original version installs correctly, soporific. ;)
Microsoft wrote:Why was this bulletin rereleased on March 10, 2009?
Microsoft rereleased this bulletin to offer new update packages for Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 to fix an installation issue.[...]

Customers who have already successfully installed the update packages for Windows XP Service Pack 3 or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 will not be offered and do not need to install the new update packages.
As long as the necessary registry entries are present, there should be no problem.

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Changes from 1.0.9 to 1.1.0

Post by Bhishmar » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:50 pm

I may late in picking this out.
Comparing 1.0.9 to 1.1.0 UpdatePack Changes, i see that around a dozen files (dll/ini/inf) are updated to new versions.
Almost all other files remain same (about 355 files).

But there is one notable exception! The file "msi.dll" is rolledback to an older version.
From Ver- 4.5.6002. 22172 (dated 17-7.2009) to Ver-4.5.6001.22375 (dated 11-3-2009)

Just wanted to know whether this was intentional?
Is this a M$ contributed ......?

User avatar
DaRk MaDnEsS
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Port Said,Egypt

Re: Changes from 1.0.9 to 1.1.0

Post by DaRk MaDnEsS » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:29 pm

Bhishmar wrote:I may late in picking this out.
Comparing 1.0.9 to 1.1.0 UpdatePack Changes, i see that around a dozen files (dll/ini/inf) are updated to new versions.
Almost all other files remain same (about 355 files).

But there is one notable exception! The file "msi.dll" is rolledback to an older version.
From Ver- 4.5.6002. 22172 (dated 17-7.2009) to Ver-4.5.6001.22375 (dated 11-3-2009)

Just wanted to know whether this was intentional?
Is this a M$ contributed ......?
well if i remember the last version did have an issue

with office 2003

so i think he got to the older version to be on the safe side

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Re: Changes from 1.0.9 to 1.1.0

Post by user_hidden » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:38 pm

Bhishmar wrote:I may late in picking this out.
Comparing 1.0.9 to 1.1.0 UpdatePack Changes, i see that around a dozen files (dll/ini/inf) are updated to new versions.
Almost all other files remain same (about 355 files).

But there is one notable exception! The file "msi.dll" is rolledback to an older version.
From Ver- 4.5.6002. 22172 (dated 17-7.2009) to Ver-4.5.6001.22375 (dated 11-3-2009)

Just wanted to know whether this was intentional?
Is this a M$ contributed ......?
you are correct it was a rollback to a more stable version of msi.dll

it seems MS snafu'd by releaseing the newer version as it causes
issues with MSI installer files. if i'm not mistaken all of the postSP3
updatepacks use the same version as this pack and not the newer one.

User avatar
Bhishmar
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Changes from 1.0.9 to 1.1.0

Post by Bhishmar » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:00 am

user_hidden wrote:you are correct it was a rollback to a more stable version of msi.dll

it seems MS snafu'd by releasing the newer version as it causes issues with MSI installer files. if i'm not mistaken all of the postSP3 updatepacks use the same version as this pack and not the newer one.
Thanks for the clarification.
and good to know that the new stuffs go thru some such screening/validation at release stage itself. :rolleyes:

tamas970
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:05 am

Re: Changes from 1.0.9 to 1.1.0

Post by tamas970 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:47 pm

I hope, version 1.1.1 is not too far away, a truckload of updates has just arrived. :)

user_hidden wrote: you are correct it was a rollback to a more stable version of msi.dll

it seems MS snafu'd by releaseing the newer version as it causes
issues with MSI installer files. if i'm not mistaken all of the postSP3
updatepacks use the same version as this pack and not the newer one.

newsposter
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:31 am

Post by newsposter » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:39 pm

kind of rude, prodding a volunteer pack maker on patch tuesday..........

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:34 pm

update will be released in the morning.

had a slight pc issue today so just getting stuff back in order.

here is the changelog.
1.11
updated KB890830 Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool Key to v3.00
updated KB916157
updated KB931125 Root Certificates Update September 2009
added KB940458
added KB954155
added KB955830
added KB956048
added KB957931
added KB958869
added KB969059
added KB971234
added KB971250 replaced KB972483
added KB971486 replaced KB961555
added KB972828 replaced KB967885
added kb973525 replaced KB973346
added KB974112 replaced KB954600
added KB974176 replaced KB970653
added KB974455
added KB974571
added KB975467

dolivas
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Livonia, MI

Post by dolivas » Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:53 pm

user_hidden

Thank you very much for this and thanks for letting us know it will be released in the morning. You work is very much appreciated.....

User avatar
yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:34 am

KB958869 replaces KB958911(KB938464), isn't it?

EDIT:
KB957264 supersedes KB940458. I don't have this hotfix included in my pack but just I keep a list of hotfixes locally.
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
user_hidden
Posts: 1924
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Canada eh!

Post by user_hidden » Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:47 am

yumeyao wrote:KB958869 replaces KB958911(KB938464), isn't it?

EDIT:
KB957264 supersedes KB940458. I don't have this hotfix included in my pack but just I keep a list of hotfixes locally.
yes and yes :wink:

User avatar
moataz
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Egypt
Contact:

Post by moataz » Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:28 pm

Many thanks for your efforts. :)
XP Light, 8.1 Right Developer

Mann41
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:27 pm

Post by Mann41 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:24 am

thanks for the update :D

Post Reply