XPSP3_QFE_UpdatePack for Windows XP Post-SP3 20180109

[user_hidden]

You may want to consider a new release soon. The Flash update deals with two security issues.

you win

pack updated version 1.2.0 20100212 ....

[vmanda]

After integrating latest pack (1.2.0 20100212), I can confirn that MU shows ZERO updates.
Also qfecheck show all updates correctly.

Great work. thanks u_h

[trippinferret]

Hi user_hidden

Just finished integrating your pack and a few others, here's what I did.

Onepiece IE8 1.9.0
Onepiece Windows Media Player 11 v2.0.0
Onepiece Net Framework 1.1.4322.2443
User_Hidden QFE Updatepack 1.2.0
Ricktendo64 XP to MCE05

All integrated successfully in the one go, but let NLite choose the order in which to slipstream and you will have a fully patched XP SP3 Media Center Edition DVD, formatted the hard drive and it installed perfectly.
Thanks to all who made it possible.

[vodacuza]

Hi user_hidden

Just finished integrating your pack and a few others, here's what I did.

Onepiece IE8 1.9.0
Onepiece Windows Media Player 11 v2.0.0
Onepiece Net Framework 1.1.4322.2443
User_Hidden QFE Updatepack 1.2.0
Ricktendo64 XP to MCE05

All integrated successfully ........

thanx for the tip of transforming XP 2 MCE ... regarding the issue of the order in which one should integrate pieces... I am afraid that QFE must go first, as the prime integration operation,... I mean before IE8, WMP11...since those two are explicitly oversighted in QFE structure policy... although the former (QFE pack) it represents the very platform for the latter ones... (IE8, WMP11).

I believe that QFE does have elements of the i.e. browser and multimedia components from M.S., that the IE8 and WMP11 need to update, modify, even replace . Fellows here could provide as with more helping information, i am novice, although i consider the reasons of chronological releasing of components and also the design that user_hidden had in mind making QFE ... allowing us to use QFE as is...or update components such as IE and WMP after each one's flavor...

[ricktendo64]

You can move the addons up or down on the list, updatepacks should always go first

[vodacuza]

I've made my first silent installers consisting of 3 updates I personally use over QFE.

• CAPICOM-KB931906-v2102.exe
• WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB979099-Client-x86-ENU.exe
• Silverlight.exe (3.0.50106.0 - last one, updated)

could someone tell me if i did it right, pls ? I would like to integrate them using RVMi

mine KBs over QFE.7z

[newsposter]

v, you should probably make your own thread instead of using this one.

[user_hidden]

I've made my first silent installers consisting of 3 updates I personally use over QFE.

• CAPICOM-KB931906-v2102.exe
• WindowsRightsManagementServicesSP2-KB979099-Client-x86-ENU.exe
• Silverlight.exe (3.0.50106.0 - last one, updated)

could someone tell me if i did it right, pls ? I would like to integrate them using RVMi

mine KBs over QFE.7z

start a new thread about your addons.

addons get tested in a VM.
you should install Virtualbox or VMware and test yourself.
addons should not be released public unless already tested.

[mr_smartepants]

I've been having this odd issue where if I integrate this pack (using RVMi 1.6) on clean XP Pro SP3 and XP Home SP3 sources and then make a multiboot disc using XP PowerPacker, this one update (KB955759) shows up when I run Microsoft Update. If I tell MU to install it, nothing seems to change; the update remains listed when I run MU again.

Weirder is that this issue does not present itself when I don't make a multiboot disc (i.e. just burn the slipstreamed XP Pro disc by itself). I'm not using any other update packs or anything. Anyone encounter this?

Yes, I'm still chasing this gremlin! When doing a clean integration with 1.20 (I'm testing 1.18 at the moment) and the rest of my addons, the subsequent .iso tests fine in VM. If I modify the source using XPtsp (which doesn't modify any files included in kb955759), that hotfix will continue to show up over and over again regardless how many times I allow MU/WU to install it.
Very odd.
I'm regressing back through the updatepacks to find the point it starts working again.

@U_H, is there a quick way for me to remove kb955759 from this updatepack for testing?

[5eraph]

That update should be easily removed by using the following addon. It should be mentioned that by using this addon, the resulting installation can be exploited through the vulnerabilities described in MS Security Advisory 954157 unless KB955759 is reapplied using some other method.

Details:

• Intended for user_hidden's Update Pack v1.1.5 or later.
• Untested.
• Integrates with RyanVM Integrator v1.6 and nLite 1.4.9.1, or later versions of either.

Downloads:

• Link: 5er_KB955759_Removal_Addon.7z
  Size: 423 KB
  MD5: d0edf10b95eead818f27efdcb3aae864

[mr_smartepants]

Thank you 5eraph. Yes, I plan on adding KB955759 either manually or at ROE whichever works for me in my unique circumstances.
I'll test and report back.

*Edit
Confirmed. Using the removal addon, then adding the KB955759 hotfix at ROE works perfectly. I'm not sure why incorporating the hotfix into the updatepack is causing the trouble, but it is.

[vodacuza]

...you should install Virtualbox or VMware and test yourself.

just downloaded virtualbox

[vmanda]

Just activated and ms site pointed me to download a new LegitCheckControl.cab containing LegitCheckControl.dll version 1.9.42.0
Not pointed me until today even if dll date is 25.06.2009. Strange microsoft ways ! seem to be one verry delayed update.
inside of latest pack (1.20 20100212) is legitcc.dll version 1.9.40.0 10.03.2009.

Microsoft source files here (direct download )

[user_hidden]

Just activated and ms site pointed me to download a new LegitCheckControl.cab containing LegitCheckControl.dll version 1.9.42.0
Not pointed me until today even if dll date is 25.06.2009. Strange microsoft ways ! seem to be one verry delayed update.
inside of latest pack (1.20 20100212) is legitcc.dll version 1.9.40.0 10.03.2009.

I will update for the next release.

thank you vmanda

[vodacuza]

i'm just guessing here, they send the same version .dll repackaged under the declared version of "1942", only when some "sensor" detects to much friction around the senzitive matter of modifying and testing activation behaviors, on some machines...i mean ..when some data does not corelate anymore... they send the refurbished 1940 as 1942, who knows what MS has in mind, anyway...it is the time by now, for them, to release another official upgrade to the protection mechanism

Used Install Watch...saw that hidding or revealing an update from the list it addresses to 3 logs (3 different locations on PC) and registry also

[user_hidden]

Just activated and ms site pointed me to download a new LegitCheckControl.cab containing LegitCheckControl.dll version 1.9.42.0

i updated the pack locally.

out of curiosity, i removed KB892130 from the test system.
i then went to MU and was prompted for KB892130 download.
after download and install they pushed version 1.7.69.2 !!!

very strange.

[vodacuza]

waw, so they abandoned the ethic rules they've used as with and playing dirty now, becoming tricky , or I am becoming paranoid . maybe the declared version (even digital signing) is one, and the content is new, could someone compare the present one with the old version one it says it is ?

[user_hidden]

waw, so they abandoned the ethic rules they've used as with and playing dirty now, becoming tricky , or I am becoming paranoid . maybe the declared version (even digital signing) is one, and the content is new, could someone compare the present one with the old version one it says it is ?

dont worry about having the "latest" version.

[vodacuza]

detected new: KB979306
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... R0UQ%3d%3d

[speedy859]

I've been having this odd issue where if I integrate this pack (using RVMi 1.6) on clean XP Pro SP3 and XP Home SP3 sources and then make a multiboot disc using XP PowerPacker, this one update (KB955759) shows up when I run Microsoft Update. If I tell MU to install it, nothing seems to change; the update remains listed when I run MU again.

Weirder is that this issue does not present itself when I don't make a multiboot disc (i.e. just burn the slipstreamed XP Pro disc by itself). I'm not using any other update packs or anything. Anyone encounter this?

Yes, I'm still chasing this gremlin! When doing a clean integration with 1.20 (I'm testing 1.18 at the moment) and the rest of my addons, the subsequent .iso tests fine in VM. If I modify the source using XPtsp (which doesn't modify any files included in kb955759), that hotfix will continue to show up over and over again regardless how many times I allow MU/WU to install it.
Very odd.
I'm regressing back through the updatepacks to find the point it starts working again.

@U_H, is there a quick way for me to remove kb955759 from this updatepack for testing?

I solved my issue without needing to remove KB955759 from the pack. For some reason or another, it was the method I was using to create the final ISO that affected this. The parameters I used with CDImage (supplied by the multiboot guide on MSFN) resulted in the error with KB955759. Creating the image with mkisofs, however, made it so the image was fine. I used the following parameters:

CDImage (This gave the KB 955759 error): cdimage.exe -lXPMulti -t01/01/2006,12:00:00 -b\DVD\BOOT\loader.bin -h -n -o -m \AIO-DVD C:\MultiBoot.iso

MKISOFS (This gave a working image): mkisofs -joliet-long -iso-level 2 -N -d -relaxed-filenames -duplicates-once -D -boot-load-size 4 -no-emul-boot -volid "XPMulti" -sysid "Win32" -b loader.bin -o "C:\Temp\MultiBoot.iso" "C:\AIO-DVD"

I'm not sure what exact change in the parameters made it work, but everything has been fine since I switched to mkisofs.

[vodacuza]

When I finish the tasks ment for RVMi...i quit integrator bypassing any iso image formatting (MKISOFS?) and formation , and pass to nlite to make the final adjustments and create ISO with nlite. This way I've never had problems also. I remember that using RVMi to create iso it makes an extra file on the image...which on earlier versions I could manage to transform somehow using Ultraiso and make it vanish although keeping bootinfo ..but lately did not succeed anymore, i forgot the method or not supported anymore... so I quit RVMi after integrating all there can be integrated with it and jump to nlite to integrate drivers, remove a few stuff, adjust settings and make by default invisible boot info on final disk image

[mr_smartepants]

Ah, that might explain things. XPtsp uses CDImage to build it's .iso. More testing is in order then. Thanks for the tip!

[Bhishmar]

.......................
I remember that using RVMi to create iso it makes an extra file on the image...which on earlier versions I could manage to transform somehow using Ultraiso and make it vanish although keeping bootinfo ..but lately did not succeed anymore, ....................

Do you intend to say that, the iso created by rvmI (ver-1.6), cannot be customized by UltraISO, to augment some files/folders ?
And if it is attempted, the resulting ISO will become unbootable or corrupted?
Can u elaborate. Also which version of ultraiso where u using?

[user_hidden]

detected new: KB979306

DST timezone update will be in next patch tuesday release of the pack.

[newsposter]

whoops, disregard.....

[vodacuza]

Do you intend to say that, the iso created by rvmI (ver-1.6), cannot be customized by UltraISO, to augment some files/folders ?

I wasn't saying that, Ultraiso it's a powerful tool... you may add/remove whatever to the iso with it, I was referring to the specific task of removing that "mskifo" file that appears on the root of the iso image, after using the RVMi to create iso (the final phase of the RVMi). I was saying that with previous releases of RVMi and with previous releases of Ultraiso I somehow could manage to get rid of that mskifo from the root... by saving boot info to desktop, deleting mskinfo file from image, reapplying boot info from the desktop (all 3 operations provided by using Ultraiso) Well, wasn't able anymore , so I just quit RVMi after integrations..and let nlite deal with the matter of creating iso , nlite has too that possibility . I use the final Ultraiso, always

[vodacuza]

There is one issue I would like to discuss with you all. I am afraid that there are some very few windows XP updates, even catalogated as "High Priority" by MU itself, that does not reveal normally except in some particular conditions. Although those updates are fixing system vulnerabilities, compatibilities, stability, performance blah blah... let's say improve windows XP, they appear only after installation of other pieces of software. This does not mean at all that Xp, will not be improved if we apply that update, independently or prior to that software installation, even if we will install it or not, in fact it is ment for XP in the first place. Also by having it already into the system, we just extend windows security and readiness of the platform to eventualy meet with the standards of other software components and alike.

As a practical example (the only I posses) I would like to mention what happened to me a few minutes ago when ... I've installed Office XP (my Offixe10 disk it is up to date, thanks to a tool from Siginet... "Office Integrator" ). After installing OfficeXP to check if there are any new updates available, it said "0 updates for OfficeXP" but booom : Windows XP (High Priority) update available... KB975025 . Excuse my english, i won't check it anymore

[boydaigai]

I tested update pack, Nice work.Thanks user_hidden

new hotfixs : kb97662 and kb979306

[user_hidden]

I tested update pack, Nice work.Thanks user_hidden

new hotfixs : kb97662 and kb979306

KB976662 = IE8 update not a winXP update

KB979306 = DST update already local will be in next pack.

[vodacuza]

I tested update pack, Nice work.Thanks user_hidden
new hotfixs : kb97662 and kb979306

kb97662 was reported and already implemented in this IE8:
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7778

[user_hidden]

anyone read about this? http://social.answers.microsoft.com/For ... 92b69f2fd1
seems to be a problem related to KB977165

as far as using my updatepack with KB977165 integrated there is no issues when installing or using the pc.

issues with the KB can only happen on a live system when applying the KB.

to see if your system is compatible with KB977165:
How to determine whether a computer is compatible with security update 977165

[vodacuza]

any news from u_h ?
is he working to update qfe ?

[newsposter]

Considering the next increment of the update packs are due next week, you might want to wait (quietly) until then.

No sense in releasing an updated pack with LAST MONTHS fixes when THIS MONTHS fixes are 5 days away.

[vodacuza]

hopefully microsoft will do what they are threatening us and discontinue support for XP, thus we will be stress free ...

[vmanda]

hopefully microsoft will do what they are threatening us and discontinue support for XP, thus we will be stress free ...

acording to this page ending support for sp3 will be verry soon: 21.04.2010 for regular updates,
after this date sp3 will go into "Extended Support phase", and will release only Security Updates.

Also this page says:

.........
Only Software Assurance customers who still run Windows XP can enroll in the Extended Hotfix Support Agreement if they want to receive non-security related hotfixes. The enrollment offer for consumers ended on July 14, 2009.

On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes, will be terminated.

My personal opinion: SP3 release has not been carefully prepared, since 21.04.2008, almost all windows xp components have been updated/patched.
Windows XP buyers merits an SP4 to be released, to incorporate all updates/patches since sp3 release,before to enter into "Extended Support phase",
but seem that this will not happens ...

But do not despair, we still having user_hidden ...

[mr_smartepants]

There has been much debate over the possibility of an XP SP4. I for one hope M$ builds SP4 with all the security updates/patches AND includes IE8/WMP11 BEFORE it enters the extended support phase. This would make much more sense for M$ from a support standpoint where it would have a single point of support (ie, we can't help you if you don't install SP4...). It would certainly ensure that whatever WAT/WGA process they want to enforce would be embedded within SP4 (that's what I would do!).
But this is off-topic from User_Hidden's thread. Back on topic please.
As always, these are my opinions only.

[jaynbe]

MS wants to end the lifecycle of Win XP and will never make a SP4.
It is MS policy to support any Service Pack for at least 2years.
Like in the past they may rather make a Rollup Pack to end the support.
And honestly don't expect much efforts from MS keeping XP attractive.

[paulyboi]

@ user_hidden....

The list of inclusions for this pack says Adobe Flash Player.
This does not appear to be included in Ver 1.2.0
Is this a glitch or otherwise.?

No biggie either way as its easy to include an 'vmanda' Addon to the project.

[5eraph]

Adobe Flash 10.0.45.2 for Internet Explorer is included, paulyboi. An addon is required if you want Flash for other web browsers.

[jaynbe]

@ user_hidden....

The list of inclusions for this pack says Adobe Flash Player.
This does not appear to be included in Ver 1.2.0
Is this a glitch or otherwise.?

No biggie either way as its easy to include an 'vmanda' Addon to the project.

I noticed the same issue with Adobe Flash 10.0.45.2 for Internet Explorer.
It seems not correctly installing with this updatepack: to fix in the next pack.

[user_hidden]

@ user_hidden....

The list of inclusions for this pack says Adobe Flash Player.
This does not appear to be included in Ver 1.2.0
Is this a glitch or otherwise.?

No biggie either way as its easy to include an 'vmanda' Addon to the project.

I noticed the same issue with Adobe Flash 10.0.45.2 for Internet Explorer.
It seems not correctly installing with this updatepack: to fix in the next pack.

Flash activex control for IE is installed correctly.
This is NOT the flash player nor addon for any other browser.

[paulyboi]

ahhh....

Many thanks for the clarification User_Hidden.

[maddog]

eagerly waiting the new security update releasing......

[seniorquico]

The links in the first post appear to be dead. Does anybody have a mirror of these files?

[user_hidden]

updated version 1.2.1 20100309 .....

[ChiefZeke]

Got it. Nice and quick for patch Tuesday

[seniorquico]

It worked perfectly! Thanks so much for the update!

[=[FEAR]=JIGSAW]

Thanks

[compstuff]

THANKS!!!!!!

[adric]

Nothing to pick on

Al