RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 8.Mar.2003 11:45:00 AM
|
|
|
OldManUnder
Posts: 35
Joined: 2.Mar.2003
From: Here and There, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by xnih:
Office 2000 Gold must be patched with SR1 or SR1a before SP3 can be installed. Limitation provided by MS.
Yes but Tom is saying he has Office XP and shouldn't see this detected.
Gerald
[ March 08, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: OldManUnder ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 8.Mar.2003 2:24:00 PM
|
|
|
OldManUnder
Posts: 35
Joined: 2.Mar.2003
From: Here and There, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by OldManUnder:
Originally posted by xnih:
Office 2000 Gold must be patched with SR1 or SR1a before SP3 can be installed. Limitation provided by MS.
Yes but Tom is saying he has Office XP and shouldn't see this detected.
So we have a few problems with the Office recommendations then:
1) Recommends SP for wrong Office version.
2) Recommends only latests SP. Since the Office SPs are not cumalative this is incorrect.
3) Recommends the download/installation of the standard SP update, even when Office was installed from an administrative installation point (and should only be updated from said point).
Gerald
[ March 08, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: OldManUnder ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 8.Mar.2003 4:38:00 PM
|
|
|
xnih
Posts: 2465
Joined: 30.May2001
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
quote:
LNSS instructs a manual installation of the missing Office 2000 Service Pack shown above. We're running Office XP
Sorry missed that, been a long week and knew about the other issue.
We've been looking into Office stuff all week, brand new detection in 3.2 which has just been implemented.
quote:
So we have a few problems with the Office recommendations then:
1) Recommends SP for wrong Office version.
2) Recommends only latests SP. Since the Office SPs are not cumalative this is incorrect.
3) Recommends the download/installation of the standard SP update, even when Office was installed from an administrative installation point (and should only be updated from said point).
In regards to:
1. I believe it was late yesterday or the day before we made some changes to the detection for what version of office. Not sure if it will correct this issue or not. I'll look into it a bit more on Monday. Please see my note at the bottom of this message on the date on products.xml file.
2. Already been being discussed this week, I haven't heard back on the plan yet.
3. MS provides no way to differentiate between an administrative install and a local install. We'll actually maybe they do a bit with the m and n in the registry key I'm mentioned elsewhere in another doc. I'll have to look into that, but I think that will just say whether the cd was on network drive that it was installed on if it is an n, that does not mean it was an administrative install. I'll look into it a bit more, but I don't believe there is any specific file sitting there or a registry setting that MS provides to differentiate between them, if you know of one please let me know.
If you can provide me either on the forums here, or via email (eric@languard.com) an export of the registry from the machine above I'd appreciate it. Need to look at: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Common\ProductVersion
and last, but not least, what is the date on the products.xml file you have? Do you have it setup to download the latest version from GFI?
Thanks,
eric
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 9.Mar.2003 3:52:00 PM
|
|
|
OldManUnder
Posts: 35
Joined: 2.Mar.2003
From: Here and There, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by xnih:
[QUOTE] LNSS instructs a manual installation 3. MS provides no way to differentiate between an administrative install and a local install.
Well it is more like "provides no documented way". IIRC back when I looked at this with O2K we enumerated the installer keys, got the localpackage value to locate the local cached MSI file for this info.
quote:
If you can provide me either on the forums here, or via email (eric@languard.com) an export of the registry from the machine above I'd appreciate it. Need to look at: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Common\ProductVersion
Well by now LastProduct will have 10.0.4330.0 on that one, but that really doesn't apply to an admin install or not. Maybe you are jumping back to #1 about IDing wrong SP. If so I only put that on my list from Tom's post. I haven't seen it here.
quote:
and last, but not least, what is the date on the products.xml file you have? Do you have it setup to download the latest version from GFI?
Yes, I am setup to download the latest... It is from 3-7-2003.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 9.Mar.2003 9:07:00 PM
|
|
|
xnih
Posts: 2465
Joined: 30.May2001
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
k, thanks, will see what I can figure out on Monday when I have test machines around.
eric
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 10.Mar.2003 2:54:00 AM
|
|
|
OldManUnder
Posts: 35
Joined: 2.Mar.2003
From: Here and There, USA
Status: offline
|
Meant to ask about the SQL 2000 SP3 recommendation as well. Seems LNSS is suggesting I download/install SQL2KASP3.EXE (for analysis services components) instead of SQL2KSP3.EXE (database components). Even with analysis services present the install order should be SQL2KSP3.EXE first and it isn't even being pushed.
The correct info (SQL2KSP1.EXE) is there for SP1 in the PRODUCT.XML file, but it lists the Analysis Services Components SP filename for SP2 and SP3. I changed mine to get the SP to my dev PC, but this package must be extracted and ran of course and doesn't.
Like the Office updates there are many things to consider for the SQL SP install (do you also need the analysis services SP, do you need the frowned on cross-database ownership chaining, etc.) Since there are more than a few variables involved with these, I would prefer a report only option for the non-system updates.
Gerald
[ March 10, 2003, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: OldManUnder ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 10.Mar.2003 9:45:00 AM
|
|
|
xnih
Posts: 2465
Joined: 30.May2001
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
quote:
Meant to ask about the SQL 2000 SP3 recommendation as well. Seems LNSS is suggesting I download/install SQL2KASP3.EXE (for analysis services components) instead of SQL2KSP3.EXE (database components). Even with analysis services present the install order should be SQL2KSP3.EXE first and it isn't even being pushed.
The correct info (SQL2KSP1.EXE) is there for SP1 in the PRODUCT.XML file, but it lists the Analysis Services Components SP filename for SP2 and SP3. I changed mine to get the SP to my dev PC, but this package must be extracted and ran of course and doesn't.
Like the Office updates there are many things to consider for the SQL SP install (do you also need the analysis services SP, do you need the frowned on cross-database ownership chaining, etc.) Since there are more than a few variables involved with these, I would prefer a report only option for the non-system updates.
Passed onto development team.
The info I recieved back was basically this:
SP3 is split into 3 parts and obviously since we provide 1 link we cannot include all 3. in any case, SQL sp is not silent installable so he has to make the installation manually.
I'm not sure if they are looking at changing the number of links we provide (for SP3 on Office 2k, since have to be at SR1 to put it in, and then this issue). Anyway, been passed on and they are now aware of it.
eric
[ March 10, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: xnih ]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 12.Mar.2003 8:53:00 PM
|
|
|
Tom
Posts: 11
Joined: 3.Mar.2003
Status: offline
|
Gerald and Eric, thank you for your efforts here in this thread. I haven't had time to help iron things out by providing more information than I have, and I apologize for that. It seems that I need to devote time to become thoroughly immersed in this product to understand what it means, versus what it says, etc.
I wouldn't mind doing these things and providing screen captures and references if I were part of a beta group or a member of the development team.
Eric, please let me know how to go about getting a refund.
Thank you,
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 12.Mar.2003 10:29:00 PM
|
|
|
xnih
Posts: 2465
Joined: 30.May2001
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
Tom,
I have no idea, I have contact with a few people on the development team and that is about it. Email me at eric@languard.com with an email address I can forward on to the project manager.
I think the main thing(s) you've brought up, from what I recall off the top of my head have been issues with Office, which is brand new in 3.2, though it seems there was something else before 3.2 was released. Oh yeah, the issue on NT 4 and security updates versus other microsoft updates.
Anyway, email me an address and I'll forward that onto my contact. That or contact the support@gfi.com email address and ask them, or your reseller, I believe it was AnthonyH who posted on this same thread.
eric
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 13.Mar.2003 7:29:00 AM
|
|
|
Tom
Posts: 11
Joined: 3.Mar.2003
Status: offline
|
Thank you, Eric.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 7.Apr.2003 4:33:00 PM
|
|
|
Tom
Posts: 11
Joined: 3.Mar.2003
Status: offline
|
In the interest of saving others time, for those who were following this thread - the company's conclusion for me was that GFI is no longer supporting LANguard N.S.S. on Windows NT. Further, that any issue about LANguard N.S.S. that are escalated to product management are dealt with exclusively by e-mail.
Thanks to all for your efforts to help resolve this issue.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 8.Apr.2003 10:19:00 AM
|
|
|
xnih
Posts: 2465
Joined: 30.May2001
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
As far as I'm aware NT4 support has not been dropped. It has been discussed on the dropping of support for it RUNNING on a NT4 machine, but as far as I'm aware the scanning of it has not been.
As for the 2 patches you initially asked about, 813951, and 811630, one was a security update (813951) and is now detected by LNSS, but wasn't at the time because MS had not updated the mssecure.xml file, as for the other patch, yes it was deemed a critical update by MS, but at the current time we are only scanning for security patches.
In regards to:
quote:
Further, that any issue about LANguard N.S.S. that are escalated to product management are dealt with exclusively by e-mail.
As for the development team, I believe I'm the only one located in the US, there are some phone support personnel on the east coast I believe, but the rest of the development team is located in Europe, so this may be why most of it was done via email, because of the time differences.
eric
|
|
|
|
|
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches - 11.Apr.2003 11:32:00 PM
|
|
|
Tom
Posts: 11
Joined: 3.Mar.2003
Status: offline
|
Eric,
Beyond what was mentioned here in this thread, there were problems with recommendations for 1998 vintage patches being recommended, etc., which obviously were superseded by rollups already applied. Even when we applied the 1998 patch to get LNSS to stop complaining about it, the software still said it wasn't applied. My questions to the developer were going to be - if I apply the outdated patch to stop the messages, won't I undo subsequent patches that may have further repaired that 1998 patch. I couldn't get to talk to the developer about this by phone, and after all the documenting I had done here and elsewhere, and phone calls to US support, etc., I needed to escalate the issue if possible. The response was as indicated.
Correspondence I received included the following. I assume it's ok to post this here, if not, feel free to remove it.
[removed by eric]
[ April 12, 2003, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: xnih ]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Printable Version
![[Big Grin]](/image/smiles/biggrin.gif)
RE: LNSS falsely reporting 0 missing patches -