Cause of Install Issues for KB925486

From the Microsoft Security Response Team's Blog :
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/default.aspx

> One thing to note, we recommend that you undo any of the previously recommended
> workarounds involving VGX.DLL before applying this update. Information on how to
> undo those workarounds is detailed in the bulletin. This is very important because
> if you do not revoke the VGX.DLL changes, the update could fail to install or deploy.


MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============

"MowGreen [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> From the Microsoft Security Response Team's Blog :
> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/default.aspx
>
>> One thing to note, we recommend that you undo any of the previously
>> recommended
>> workarounds involving VGX.DLL before applying this update. Information
>> on how to
>> undo those workarounds is detailed in the bulletin. This is very
>> important because
>> if you do not revoke the VGX.DLL changes, the update could fail to
>> install or deploy.
>
>
> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
> ===============
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ===============

Hello Mow
Thanks for that info - so it means that EVERYBODY who has KB925486 already
installed, HAS TO download and install this latest one(the patch to fix the
update for the fix....), or have I read it wrong and its just the workaround
that was offered a few days ago.
Also, I assume it would be best to download from here

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../MS06-055.mspx

rather than WU Home's offering which I am getting at the moment.
I can't see any instruction to the effect that the original 925486 should be
deleted so I assume it should not.
Rgds
Antioch

No. The only update superseded by KB925486 pertains to
MS04-028(KB833987) and Windows 2K SP4. In that case, Win 2K SP4 was not
affected by the vulnerability.

What the MSRC Blog refers to is for those who used the workarounds
listed in the Sec Bulletin prior to installing the update.
There was NO previous update for the VML vulnerability, just a list of
workarounds that must be undone prior to installing KB925486.
Cabiche ?

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============

antioch wrote:
>
>
> Hello Mow
> Thanks for that info - so it means that EVERYBODY who has KB925486 already
> installed, HAS TO download and install this latest one(the patch to fix the
> update for the fix....), or have I read it wrong and its just the workaround
> that was offered a few days ago.
> Also, I assume it would be best to download from here
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../MS06-055.mspx
>
> rather than WU Home's offering which I am getting at the moment.
> I can't see any instruction to the effect that the original 925486 should be
> deleted so I assume it should not.
> Rgds
> Antioch
>
>

Hi Mow
Sorry - yes I now Cabiche (Gotcha).
Antioch


"MowGreen [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> No. The only update superseded by KB925486 pertains to MS04-028(KB833987)
> and Windows 2K SP4. In that case, Win 2K SP4 was not affected by the
> vulnerability.
>
> What the MSRC Blog refers to is for those who used the workarounds listed
> in the Sec Bulletin prior to installing the update.
> There was NO previous update for the VML vulnerability, just a list of
> workarounds that must be undone prior to installing KB925486.
> Cabiche ?
>
> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
> ===============
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ===============
>
> antioch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Mow
>> Thanks for that info - so it means that EVERYBODY who has KB925486
>> already installed, HAS TO download and install this latest one(the patch
>> to fix the update for the fix....), or have I read it wrong and its just
>> the workaround that was offered a few days ago.
>> Also, I assume it would be best to download from here
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../MS06-055.mspx
>>
>> rather than WU Home's offering which I am getting at the moment.
>> I can't see any instruction to the effect that the original 925486 should
>> be deleted so I assume it should not.
>> Rgds
>> Antioch