Update to .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 for the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 x86 (KB963707)

Discussion in 'Windows Update' started by t-4-2, Jun 24, 2009.

  1. t-4-2

    t-4-2 Guest

    Vista Home Premium 32 bit, SP1, WLM 14v.
    I do not have Firefox. Do I need to install this Update ?
    t-4-2, Jun 24, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. t-4-2

    JS Guest

    If you do not have .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 installed
    on your PC then you may not need it. Keep in mind that
    SP1 includes updates to .NET 3.0 and 2.0 which may be
    installed on your PC.

    How to determine which versions of .NET Framework
    are installed and whether any service packs have been applied:
    See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318785
    JS, Jun 24, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. t-4-2

    t-4-2 Guest

    Update History : - -
    Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family
    Update (KB951847) x86
    Installation date: ?6/?10/?2009 9:50 PM
    Installation status: Successful
    Update type: Important
    The Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 is a full cumulative update
    that contains many new features building incrementally upon .NET Framework
    2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and includes cumulative servicing updates to the .NET
    Framework 2.0 and the .NET Framework 3.0 subcomponents. The .NET Framework
    3.5 Family Update provides important application compatibility updates. This
    update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows Vista and Windows
    Server 2008 License Terms.

    I did have KB951847 installed unwittingly. ( Windows Update is set on "
    manual " ).
    Can I ignore KB963707, and " hide " it, or just go ahead and install it ?
    t-4-2, Jun 24, 2009
  4. t-4-2

    JS Guest

    JS, Jun 24, 2009
  5. t-4-2

    khaled Guest

    khaled, Jun 24, 2009
  6. [ <sigh> Here we go again... ]
    PA Bear [MS MVP], Jun 25, 2009
  7. t-4-2

    t-4-2 Guest

    You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Nobody is putting a gun at
    your head.

    t-4-2, Jun 25, 2009
  8. Nobody's forcing you to read my [posts in brackets] either.

    PA Bear [MS MVP], Jun 25, 2009
  9. t-4-2

    t-4-2 Guest

    The integrity of an MVP has just been tarnished by your childish behaviour.

    t-4-2, Jun 25, 2009
  10. t-4-2

    John Guest

    How's the OP supposed to check for a (possible) answer if he/she doesn't
    open and read it?

    John, Jun 25, 2009
  11. t-4-2

    Dale Guest

    You should install this update whether or not you currently use FireFox.
    Otherwise, if you ever do use FireFox (and you should be using it instead of
    IE anything) then you will still have the dangerous add-on that Microsoft
    snuck onto your PC and is now lying in wait for when you do install FireFox.
    The only way to remove it safely is to use this patch so the uninstall button
    becomes available.

    Definitely install this patch. And definitely uninstall any Microsoft
    add-ons to FireFox. Afterall, that's why we use FireFox - because it's not
    Microsoft. Now Microsoft has hijacked it to inject security flaws from IE
    into FireFox.
    Dale, Jun 28, 2009
  12. t-4-2

    t-4-2 Guest

    Thank you. I'll do that.

    t-4-2, Jun 28, 2009
  13. Good luck with that. (Looked at the plug-ins list lately?)

    For the OP: don't panic. Disabling add-ons is just as good as uninstalling them.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Jun 28, 2009
  14. Nope, disabling the ".NET Framework Assistant 1.0" (or "1.1") doesn't
    restore the original User-Agent that's send out by a browser to any server,
    while uninstalling the Add-On/Extension does.

    Ottmar Freudenberger, Jul 1, 2009
  15. I stand corrected. A disabled extension shouldn't change the User-Agent string,
    though; is this a bug in the extension or in Firefox?

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Jul 1, 2009
  16. [We've missed you Freudi. Hope all is well...or at least as well as can be
    expected...on your end.]
    PA Bear [MS MVP], Jul 1, 2009
  17. t-4-2

    Dale Guest

    Since the add-ons and extensions were installed without the users knowledge
    or permission, and not installed using the procedures established by Firefox
    for installing extensions and add-ons, then it does not seem like it would be
    a Firefox bug if disabling doesn't properly restore the user agent string.

    Since the change to the user agent string was caused by a trojan, you'll
    have to reset it by editing the configuration files for Firefox (I think. I
    know that IE keeps the user agent string in the registry but I think it is in
    a settings file in Firefox but I'm not a Firefox expert.)
    Dale, Jul 3, 2009
  18. (Sigh.) That's not true. The method used is documented by Mozilla here:


    The extra part of the user agent string is definitely stored as a preference.
    You can remove it using the about:config URL. As far as I know, Firefox doesn't
    keep track of which add-on a preference is associated with, so it would have no
    way of removing it, and unless add-ons are informed when they are disabled it
    wouldn't be able to either.

    There may be a supported way for extensions to modify the user agent string; it
    seems like something they would often need to do. I guess I should be asking in
    the Mozilla Developer forums.

    Harry Johnston [MVP], Jul 3, 2009
  19. What Dale wrote.

    Ottmar Freudenberger, Jul 11, 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.