.NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB951847) x86

Discussion in 'Update Services' started by John, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. John

    John Guest

    Update ID: 72309362-525d-4ad6-b90a-d414cabf3690
    ..NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update
    (KB951847) x86

    Update ID: 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d
    ..NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update
    (KB951847) x86

    The above 2 updates are waiting for approval. The problem with these updates
    is some PCs don't have any version of .NET installed but WSUS says they all
    need KB951847.

    I've been waiting for MS to fix detection logic on those 2 updates. They've
    done nothing so far.

    Is it ok to Decline the above 2 updates?

    I have several computers with different versions of .NET (version 1.x and
    2.x). Not a single computers have .NET version 3 and later installed. If I
    decline the above 2 updates, must I patch .NET version 1.x and 2.x? If so,
    how can I automate the patch thru WSUS 3.1?

    John, Mar 6, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. John

    Wade Godfrey Guest

    Wade Godfrey, Mar 6, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Specifically, 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d detects as needed if no
    version of .NET is present. 72309362-525d-4ad6-b90a-d414cabf3690 detects as
    needed only if .NET 2 is present.

    I believe this is by design. 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d replaces the
    ..NET 2 package, KB829019, which has always installed on machines without .NET 2
    I'm not expecting them to be changed.
    If you don't want to install .NET on machines that don't have it installed, by
    all means decline 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d. (What did you do with
    KB829019? I presume you must have declined it, or it would also be showing
    needed on the machines in question.)

    I'd be a bit more careful about 72309362-525d-4ad6-b90a-d414cabf3690. From what
    we've heard, Microsoft are intending to baseline .NET 2+ at .NET 3.5 sp1, i.e.,
    they're no longer going to consider it "normal" to have .NET 2 or .NET 3
    installed except as a part of .NET 3.5. It is possible that future .NET
    security updates won't be available via WSUS to stand-alone 2.0/3.0
    installations. Although I hope this won't be the case, to the best of my
    knowledge Microsoft haven't yet made any statement on the matter.

    Of course, this doesn't mean you want to jump from 2.0 to 3.5 this instant. At
    the very least you'll want to do some testing first. However, if you do decide
    to decline this update make sure you examine all new security updates for .NET
    carefully to make sure they don't depend on 3.5.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 8, 2009
  4. John

    John Guest

    What's KB829019?
    WSUS search for KB829019 (or 829019) doesn't return any hit. There is no
    such KB in my WSUS.
    John, Mar 9, 2009
  5. John

    John Guest

    If I decline this update, some machines that DO have a version of .NET will
    not get this update either.
    Not sure what KB829019 is. I searched for KB829019. It does not exist in my
    John, Mar 9, 2009
  6. John

    John Guest

    Thanks but that does not answer my question.

    My response:
    1) I can ignore KB 959207 because none of my machine has .NET 3.5
    2) KB951847 will upgrade computers with .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 to the
    latest version... blah blah...

    In addition to upgrading machines that have 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, KB951847 will
    also install on machines that DOES NOT have any traces of .NET installation.
    In my opinion, an update (or service pack) should ONLY update a component
    that's already installed on the machine. In this case, KB951847 installs a
    new component that was never there or needed to begin with.
    John, Mar 9, 2009
  7. That shouldn't happen - unless you mean .NET 1.x?

    On my system at least, 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d only detects as
    needed for machines without .NET 2+ installed. I suppose this might happen if
    the .NET installation on the machine is corrupted somehow and not being recognised.

    Please doublecheck to make sure you've got a computer with .NET 2+ installed
    that is detecting 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d as needed. Is it just a
    few computers or lots of them?
    Perhaps you don't have the "Updates" classification enabled?

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 9, 2009
  8. John

    John Guest

    I just double checked it. WSUS shows there are 21 computers that need
    990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d update. The 21 PCs are as follows:

    i) .NET version 1.1 was installed sometime in the past
    ii) Does not have any .NET at all

    I verified the existence of .NET installation by looking at every machine
    Add/Remove Program and C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET folder. Neither one exists
    and therefore I conclude the machines never got .NET installed and never
    need it. If they don't need .NET Framework, why do they need Framework 3.5

    If I decline 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d update, what would I do to
    those machines that have .NET 1.1 installed and need .NET Framework 3.5
    update (990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d)?
    That is correct. Updates option isn't checked.
    John, Mar 9, 2009
  9. OK, that's as expected. This package installs on machines that don't have any
    version of .NET 2+ present. The presence or absence of 1.1 is irrelevant.
    They don't need it. However, in some cases, it may be desirable to have the
    ..NET 2+ framework installed on all machines rather than just some of them, so as
    to make the environment more uniform, or to install the .NET 2+ framework in
    anticipation of software needing it later.
    The .NET 1.x framework and the .NET 2+ frameworks are separate products, with
    separate updates. The 3.5 update won't affect your 1.x install at all.

    Yes, the nomenclature is unnecessarily confusing!

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 10, 2009
  10. John

    John Guest

    Thanks Harry.
    more below...

    That's exactly my point. If they don't need this patch, why doesn't WSUS put
    those machines in the "not needed or not applicable" status?
    What if we don't want .NET at all on some of our systems? What if we know
    that we'll never add software that needs .NET in the future? How do we
    exclude these machines from getting this unnecessary "service pack"? I'm
    talking about machines that never had .NET to begin with.

    That's the reason I ask if it's good idea to decline
    990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d "service pack" or decline the whole
    John, Mar 10, 2009
  11. John

    John Guest

    Btw, Windows Update and/or Microsoft Update does not ask us to install
    KB951847. This KB isn't a critical but a recommended update. Therefore I
    think it's safe (at least for now) to decline both KB951847 updates. Any
    John, Mar 10, 2009
  12. Because to WSUS, "needed" means "applicable and not installed". Any package
    that could be installed on a machine and isn't counts as "needed".

    Just because a package is needed, doesn't mean that you need it. :)
    Then don't approve 990484d1-4d45-4c8c-a5a5-e0d82aca292d. I'm just explaining
    why some folk (including my team) do choose to approve it.

    As I said before, if you also decide to decline the other update,
    72309362-525d-4ad6-b90a-d414cabf3690 (which upgrades any existing installation
    of .NET 2, 3, or 3.5 to 3.5 service pack 1) make sure that in the future you
    remember to examine all new security updates for .NET carefully to make sure
    they don't depend on 3.5.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 14, 2009
  13. I think you'll find WU/MU consider it a Critical/Important update if .NET 2+ is
    already installed on a machine, which is why I'm reluctant to recommend
    declining 72309362-525d-4ad6-b90a-d414cabf3690. This doesn't mean you
    necessarily want to approve it, but it should be given consideration. If you do
    decide to approve it, test it first if at all possible.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 14, 2009
  14. John

    John Guest

    I didn't know that until you mentioned it.
    In that case, I'll probably do a "controlled" patching (ie: 1 PC at a time)
    instead of blindly deploying the update to all PCs (with .NET 2+)

    Thanks again for the tips, Harry.
    John, Mar 16, 2009
  15. You're most welcome. Please let us know if you do run into any difficulties.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Mar 16, 2009
  16. John

    Dave Mills Guest

    My main concern with this huge package is the time it takes to install, 30 to 40
    minutes if far too big. I have not released it to systems because the users will
    get bored and switch off the PC, especially laptops where they are waiting to go
    home with them.
    Dave Mills, Mar 17, 2009
  17. John

    Tammy Guest

    I dont understand why automatic updates keeps downloading these updates but
    my computer wont install them do u think u can help me on this please thank
    Tammy, Sep 8, 2009
  18. Well, the first note is that these updates are *expired* and should be

    The current packages for x86 have UpdateIDs:
    bd213d3c-b0b6-4e5b-a665-e605dcbd6c74 (Vista, Win2008) -- apparently with
    NET35 already installed (Rel 2/24/09)
    f910df08-2203-4855-b3d0-3d122aaaee2f (Vista,Win2008) -- apparently with NET
    35 not already installed (Rel 6/23/09)
    f54ace97-a003-44a4-9e36-ef7071f6ce9d (WinXP, Win2003) -- with NET20 not
    already installed (Rel 6/23/09)
    4d6e7393-99ba-4448-8a0a-3e8e7b84d2fa (WinXP, Win2003) -- with NET20 already
    installed (Rel 6/23/09).

    I'd venture a guess that those two packages were the ones released on
    2/24/09 and replaced by the two listed here on 6/23/09.

    Correct. The *absence* of the .NET Framework is (in the case of these
    updates) sufficient consideration to report these updates as Installable.

    Ain't going to happen:

    1. As noted, the detection logic is not defective -- although both you and I
    agree that a SERVICE PACK update should not be detecting on virgin machines.

    2. The updates are SUPERCEDED and no longer being maintained.

    Yes. Probably should have been done last June when the replacement packages
    were released.

    ..NET version 1.x is an entirely separate package. With the exception of
    Windows Server 2003 systems, and any other systems that have applications
    that *require* the presence of .NET Framework v1.1, I would recommend
    *uninstalling* .NET Framework v1.1. (You cannot uninstall it on Win2003
    systems, so you'll have to continue to maintain it -- luckily its days are
    numbered so it won't be for much longer.)

    ..NET v2.0 did not ship on any operating system natively, but is required to
    support .NET30 and .NET35 installations. Even if .NET30 and .NET35 are not
    installed, I would highly recommend obtaining the .NET Framework v2.0
    Service Pack 2 from the Microsoft Download Center and applying it to your
    Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP systems which do not need .NET30 or
    ..NET35. Unfortunately that package will not install on Vista/Win7/Win2008
    systems; for those systems you'll have to install the full .NET35 Service
    Pack 1 package, which will:
    - update the .NET Framework v2.0 to Service Pack 2
    - update the .NET Framework v3.0 to Service Pack 2
    - update the .NET Framework v3.5 to Service Pack 1 (or actually install the
    ..NET Framework v3.5 with Service Pack 1 on Win2008 machines).

    I haven't tried this, but I expect you can then *uninstall* .NET35 from the
    Windows Server 2008 systems, if you wish.

    Approve the current NET35SP1 update (KB951847) is the only way to achieve
    any of these updates via WSUS, which *will* force the installation of .NET
    Framework v3.5 with Service Pack 1 onto every system it touches.

    Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA
    Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
    Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)

    MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
    My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
    Lawrence Garvin [MVP], Sep 8, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.