MS05-050 & SP1

HI there,

Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.

I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported all
was patched.

We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure no
patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.

My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?

Thanks,
Derek

Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on the
system.

If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.

If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched version
of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.

In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case where
the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular product, the
patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and must be reapplied
to update the newer version of the subsystem being patched.

You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on Windows
XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to both versions
of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the IE6SP1. Then,
installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an IE6(SP2), which is now
"unpatched".




"Derek" <> wrote in message
news:...
> HI there,
>
> Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>
> I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
> Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported
> all was patched.
>
> We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
> today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure no
> patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>
> My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
> overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>
> Thanks,
> Derek
>

Thanks Lawrence, that makes sense.

Derek.

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:uuN$...
>
> Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on the
> system.
>
> If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
> installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.
>
> If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched
> version of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.
>
> In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case where
> the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular product, the
> patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and must be
> reapplied to update the newer version of the subsystem being patched.
>
> You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on Windows
> XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to both versions
> of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the IE6SP1. Then,
> installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an IE6(SP2), which is now
> "unpatched".
>
>
>
>
> "Derek" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> HI there,
>>
>> Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>>
>> I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
>> Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported
>> all was patched.
>>
>> We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
>> today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure no
>> patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>>
>> My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
>> overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Derek
>>
>
>

Hi,

You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
this case.

The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:

C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dll: v6.4.3790.399
C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519

Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.

More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994


I just did a test myself:

I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
KB904706 update).

If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...


Regards,
Torgeir

Derek wrote:

> Thanks Lawrence, that makes sense.
>
> Derek.
>
> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:uuN$...
>
>>Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on the
>>system.
>>
>>If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
>>installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.
>>
>>If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched
>>version of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.
>>
>>In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case where
>>the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular product, the
>>patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and must be
>>reapplied to update the newer version of the subsystem being patched.
>>
>>You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on Windows
>>XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to both versions
>>of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the IE6SP1. Then,
>>installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an IE6(SP2), which is now
>>"unpatched".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>
>>>HI there,
>>>
>>>Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>>>
>>>I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
>>>Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported
>>>all was patched.
>>>
>>>We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
>>>today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure no
>>>patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>>>
>>>My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
>>>overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Derek



--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

Thanks Torgier, obviously I need to investigate this issue more.

Derek.

"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
>
> You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
> this case.
>
> The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
> SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:
>
> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dll: v6.4.3790.399
> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
>
> Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
> the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.
>
> More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994
>
>
> I just did a test myself:
>
> I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
> folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
> after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
> KB904706 update).
>
> If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...
>
>
> Regards,
> Torgeir
>
> Derek wrote:
>
>> Thanks Lawrence, that makes sense.
>>
>> Derek.
>>
>> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in
>> message news:uuN$...
>>
>>>Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on the
>>>system.
>>>
>>>If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
>>>installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.
>>>
>>>If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched
>>>version of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.
>>>
>>>In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case where
>>>the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular product, the
>>>patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and must be
>>>reapplied to update the newer version of the subsystem being patched.
>>>
>>>You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on Windows
>>>XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to both
>>>versions of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the IE6SP1. Then,
>>>installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an IE6(SP2), which is now
>>>"unpatched".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>>news:...
>>>
>>>>HI there,
>>>>
>>>>Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>>>>
>>>>I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
>>>>Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported
>>>>all was patched.
>>>>
>>>>We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
>>>>today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure no
>>>>patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>>>>
>>>>My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
>>>>overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Derek
>
>
>
> --
> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

I'm looking into this, also, Derek, as Torgeir provided a lot of information
that I was unaware of.

For starters, you might verify the actual version number on the Quartz.dll
file installed on your system, and confirm that the SP1 did, in fact, apply
the latest version of the file. If it did, you might have simply identified
a 'bug' in the scanning engine.

You might also repeat all three scans. If only Windows Update is reporting
the error, this might be something to look further into. Also, you did not
say.. are you using MBSA v1.2 or MBSA v2.0? The MBSA v2 and WU should show
the same results. MBSA v1.2 may show something different than any other
methodology as it uses it's own datastore.


"Derek" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Thanks Torgier, obviously I need to investigate this issue more.
>
> Derek.
>
> "Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hi,
>>
>> You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
>> this case.
>>
>> The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
>> SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:
>>
>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dll: v6.4.3790.399
>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
>>
>> Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
>> the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.
>>
>> More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994
>>
>>
>> I just did a test myself:
>>
>> I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
>> folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
>> after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
>> KB904706 update).
>>
>> If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Torgeir
>>
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Lawrence, that makes sense.
>>>
>>> Derek.
>>>
>>> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in
>>> message news:uuN$...
>>>
>>>>Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on the
>>>>system.
>>>>
>>>>If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
>>>>installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.
>>>>
>>>>If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched
>>>>version of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.
>>>>
>>>>In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case
>>>>where the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular
>>>>product, the patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and
>>>>must be reapplied to update the newer version of the subsystem being
>>>>patched.
>>>>
>>>>You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on
>>>>Windows XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to
>>>>both versions of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the IE6SP1.
>>>>Then, installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an IE6(SP2), which
>>>>is now "unpatched".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:...
>>>>
>>>>>HI there,
>>>>>
>>>>>Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
>>>>>Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both reported
>>>>>all was patched.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
>>>>>today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure
>>>>>no patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>>>>>
>>>>>My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
>>>>>overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Derek
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
>> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
>> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx
>
>

Hi Lawrence, Togier et al,

I ran dxdiag on my server at various points to find out the file versions -
here are my findings:

Windows 2003 With all the hotfixes including MS05-050 (NO SP1)
DirectX version: 9.0b(4.09.0000.0902)
Quartz.dll: 6.05.001.0907 (8/30/2005)

Above machine after Installing SP1
DirectX version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.1830 (3/24/2005)

Post SP1 + re-application of MS05-050
DirectX Version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.2519 (8/30/2005)

So it does look like SP1 is overwritting the quartz.dll file during SP1
installation - which is then being updated by re-applying MS05-050.

All my machines now have the MS05-050 patch, so I cannot tell what rev
quartz.dll was before MS05-050.

Lawrence, both Windows Update, MBSA v2.0 and Shavlik HFNetchkPro report
MS05-050 as missing after SP1 installation. This has been the case on 10
servers we have patched with SP1 so far.

Cheers,
Derek.



"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> I'm looking into this, also, Derek, as Torgeir provided a lot of
> information that I was unaware of.
>
> For starters, you might verify the actual version number on the Quartz.dll
> file installed on your system, and confirm that the SP1 did, in fact,
> apply the latest version of the file. If it did, you might have simply
> identified a 'bug' in the scanning engine.
>
> You might also repeat all three scans. If only Windows Update is reporting
> the error, this might be something to look further into. Also, you did not
> say.. are you using MBSA v1.2 or MBSA v2.0? The MBSA v2 and WU should show
> the same results. MBSA v1.2 may show something different than any other
> methodology as it uses it's own datastore.
>
>
> "Derek" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Thanks Torgier, obviously I need to investigate this issue more.
>>
>> Derek.
>>
>> "Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
>>> this case.
>>>
>>> The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
>>> SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:
>>>
>>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dll: v6.4.3790.399
>>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
>>> C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dll: v6.5.3790.2519
>>>
>>> Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
>>> the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.
>>>
>>> More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994
>>>
>>>
>>> I just did a test myself:
>>>
>>> I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
>>> folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
>>> after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
>>> KB904706 update).
>>>
>>> If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Torgeir
>>>
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Lawrence, that makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Derek.
>>>>
>>>> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in
>>>> message news:uuN$...
>>>>
>>>>>Windows Server 2003 SP1 updates the version of Direct X installed on
>>>>>the system.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you installed MS05-050 prior to installing SP1, then it patched the
>>>>>installation of DirectX v8.1 that ships on Windows Server 2003 RTM.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you then installed SP1, the DirectX was upgraded to an unpatched
>>>>>version of DirectX v9.0c, and will require repatching.
>>>>>
>>>>>In general, newer patches will be left undisturbed, but in the case
>>>>>where the service pack introduces a new /version/ of a particular
>>>>>product, the patch then becomes irrelevant to the new environment, and
>>>>>must be reapplied to update the newer version of the subsystem being
>>>>>patched.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll experience similar issues, for example, with IE patches on
>>>>>Windows XP. If you apply a patch released after SP2, that applies to
>>>>>both versions of IE6 (SP1 and XP SP2), the patch will update the
>>>>>IE6SP1. Then, installation of XP SP2 will upgrade the IE to an
>>>>>IE6(SP2), which is now "unpatched".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news:.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>>HI there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Was hoping someone can clarify an issue for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I rolled out all the patches released on patch Tuesday, did a MBSA and
>>>>>>Shavlik scan to ensure my infrastructure was up to date - both
>>>>>>reported all was patched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We are in the process of upgrading our servers to Windows 2003 SP1, so
>>>>>>today, I patched a server with SP1 and did a windows update to ensure
>>>>>>no patches were missing.. MS05-050 showed up as missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My understanding is that in Windows 2003, newer patches would not be
>>>>>>overwritten... am I mistaken.. is this behaviour normal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Derek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
>>> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
>>> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx
>>
>>
>
>

"Derek" <> wrote in message
news:...

> Lawrence, both Windows Update, MBSA v2.0 and Shavlik HFNetchkPro report
> MS05-050 as missing after SP1 installation. This has been the case on 10
> servers we have patched with SP1 so far.

Derek.. I would classify this as a 'bug'.....

And while I might have expected it from Shavlik..... considering they're
probably using a different scanning engine, for the WUA (which is what WU
and MBSA v2 use) not to recognize the application of MS05-050 in that
scenario is not a good thing.

I'm wondering if, while the SP1 engine does a great job of replacing the
/files/, maybe it's not doing such a great job of setting the registry
values, or whatever the WUA and HFNetchkPro are testing, to determine if the
secupdate is applied.

Having false information about a secupdate is not a good thing, but it's
even worse when every tool throws up a false negative.

I'll look into this a bit more.. maybe get somebody to do some extra testing
on this scenario.

Derek wrote:

> Hi Lawrence, Togier et al,
>
> I ran dxdiag on my server at various points to find out the file versions -
> here are my findings:
>
> Windows 2003 With all the hotfixes including MS05-050 (NO SP1)
> DirectX version: 9.0b(4.09.0000.0902)
> Quartz.dll: 6.05.001.0907 (8/30/2005)

Ahh, you have upgraded to DirectX 9.0b on Win2k3 RTM (it comes builtin
with v8.1). In this case the $hf_mig$ thing I described in my previous
post does not come into play, it only applies to the DirectX versions
that comes builtin with the OS (and any OS service packs).

The MS05-050 update for DirectX 9.0b on Win2k3 does not contain any
$hf_mig$ files, so MS05-050 will be missing after you have installed
SP1 for Win2k3, and you will have to re-apply MS05-050.

To avoid this type of issues in the future, my advice is this
(especially for servers): Unless you must, you should not install newer
standalone DirectX versions. The same goes for the Media Player etc.



> Above machine after Installing SP1
> DirectX version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
> Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.1830 (3/24/2005)
>
> Post SP1 + re-application of MS05-050
> DirectX Version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
> Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.2519 (8/30/2005)
>
> So it does look like SP1 is overwritting the quartz.dll file during SP1
> installation - which is then being updated by re-applying MS05-050.
>
> All my machines now have the MS05-050 patch, so I cannot tell what rev
> quartz.dll was before MS05-050.
>
> Lawrence, both Windows Update, MBSA v2.0 and Shavlik HFNetchkPro report
> MS05-050 as missing after SP1 installation. This has been the case on 10
> servers we have patched with SP1 so far.
>
> Cheers,
> Derek.
>
>
>
> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>
>>I'm looking into this, also, Derek, as Torgeir provided a lot of
>>information that I was unaware of.
>>
>>For starters, you might verify the actual version number on the Quartz.dll
>>file installed on your system, and confirm that the SP1 did, in fact,
>>apply the latest version of the file. If it did, you might have simply
>>identified a 'bug' in the scanning engine.
>>
>>You might also repeat all three scans. If only Windows Update is reporting
>>the error, this might be something to look further into. Also, you did not
>>say.. are you using MBSA v1.2 or MBSA v2.0? The MBSA v2 and WU should show
>>the same results. MBSA v1.2 may show something different than any other
>>methodology as it uses it's own datastore.
>>
>>
>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>news:%.. .
>>
>>>Thanks Torgier, obviously I need to investigate this issue more.
>>>
>>>Derek.
>>>
>>>"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
>>>news:...
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
>>>>this case.
>>>>
>>>>The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
>>>>SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:
>>>>
>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dll : v6.4.3790.399
>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dll : v6.5.3790.2519
>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dll : v6.5.3790.2519
>>>>
>>>>Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
>>>>the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.
>>>>
>>>>More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just did a test myself:
>>>>
>>>>I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
>>>>folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
>>>>after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
>>>>KB904706 update).
>>>>
>>>>If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...
>>>>
>>>>



--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

So... even though my logic was flawed, and my knowledge deficient...

my conclusion was 100% accurate. :-)))


"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
news:%23m%23fk%...
> Derek wrote:
>
>> Hi Lawrence, Togier et al,
>>
>> I ran dxdiag on my server at various points to find out the file
>> versions - here are my findings:
>>
>> Windows 2003 With all the hotfixes including MS05-050 (NO SP1)
>> DirectX version: 9.0b(4.09.0000.0902)
>> Quartz.dll: 6.05.001.0907 (8/30/2005)
>
> Ahh, you have upgraded to DirectX 9.0b on Win2k3 RTM (it comes builtin
> with v8.1). In this case the $hf_mig$ thing I described in my previous
> post does not come into play, it only applies to the DirectX versions
> that comes builtin with the OS (and any OS service packs).
>
> The MS05-050 update for DirectX 9.0b on Win2k3 does not contain any
> $hf_mig$ files, so MS05-050 will be missing after you have installed
> SP1 for Win2k3, and you will have to re-apply MS05-050.
>
> To avoid this type of issues in the future, my advice is this
> (especially for servers): Unless you must, you should not install newer
> standalone DirectX versions. The same goes for the Media Player etc.
>
>
>
>> Above machine after Installing SP1
>> DirectX version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
>> Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.1830 (3/24/2005)
>>
>> Post SP1 + re-application of MS05-050
>> DirectX Version: 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
>> Quartz.dll: 6.05.3790.2519 (8/30/2005)
>>
>> So it does look like SP1 is overwritting the quartz.dll file during SP1
>> installation - which is then being updated by re-applying MS05-050.
>>
>> All my machines now have the MS05-050 patch, so I cannot tell what rev
>> quartz.dll was before MS05-050.
>>
>> Lawrence, both Windows Update, MBSA v2.0 and Shavlik HFNetchkPro report
>> MS05-050 as missing after SP1 installation. This has been the case on 10
>> servers we have patched with SP1 so far.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Derek.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote in
>> message news:%...
>>
>>>I'm looking into this, also, Derek, as Torgeir provided a lot of
>>>information that I was unaware of.
>>>
>>>For starters, you might verify the actual version number on the
>>>Quartz.dll file installed on your system, and confirm that the SP1 did,
>>>in fact, apply the latest version of the file. If it did, you might have
>>>simply identified a 'bug' in the scanning engine.
>>>
>>>You might also repeat all three scans. If only Windows Update is
>>>reporting the error, this might be something to look further into. Also,
>>>you did not say.. are you using MBSA v1.2 or MBSA v2.0? The MBSA v2 and
>>>WU should show the same results. MBSA v1.2 may show something different
>>>than any other methodology as it uses it's own datastore.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Derek" <> wrote in message
>>>news:%. ..
>>>
>>>>Thanks Torgier, obviously I need to investigate this issue more.
>>>>
>>>>Derek.
>>>>
>>>>"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" <Torgeir.Bakken-> wrote in message
>>>>news:...
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>You would think it makes sence, but fortunately Lawrence is wrong in
>>>>>this case.
>>>>>
>>>>>The KB904706 (MS05-050) update for Win2k3 puts files for both RTM and
>>>>>SP1 into the $hf_mig$ folder structure, like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\RTMQFE\Quartz.dl l: v6.4.3790.399
>>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1GDR\Quartz.dl l: v6.5.3790.2519
>>>>>C:\WINDOWS\$hf_mig$\KB904706\SP1QFE\Quartz.dl l: v6.5.3790.2519
>>>>>
>>>>>Installing/uninstalling SP1 for Win2k3 will fetch the correct file from
>>>>>the folder structure listed above, and put it in the System32 folder.
>>>>>
>>>>>More about the $hf_mig$ folder in this KB article:
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;824994
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I just did a test myself:
>>>>>
>>>>>I installed KB904706 on a Win2k3 RTM server. Quartz.dll in the System32
>>>>>folder ended up with version 6.4.3790.399. I then installed SP1, and
>>>>>after reboot Quartz.dll was v6.5.3790.2519 (the SP1 version of the
>>>>>KB904706 update).
>>>>>
>>>>>If this does not happen for you, your computer have a problem...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
> --
> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting, Porsgrunn Norway
> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx