KB3097877 re-issued?

[UsernameIssues]

I installed KB3097877 on the 10th.

I saw posts that it broke TeamViewer.

Indeed, my TeamViewer would not connect to other computers.

I uninstalled KB3097877 on the 10th.

TeamViewer was still broken for me.

I installed KB3097877 on the 11th so that I could keep testing Outlook.

Now I am offered KB3097877 again.
[BTW, TeamViewer started working again on its own.]




The catalog (and Windows Update) shows it was published on 12 Nov.



https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3097877

I'm going to install it

 

[UsernameIssues]

TeamViewer still works. Outlook 2010 still works... BUT: KB3097877 (version 1?) did not break Outlook on this laptop - even when viewing HTML format e-mails with images and tables. So, installing this version of KB3097877 over top of the old version of KB3097877 was not much of a test.

KB3097877 (version 1?) did break Outlook 2010 on my desktop - even if I did not open any e-mails. I can not test KB3097877 (version 2?) on my desktop again. It is busy doing stuff.

 

[jalind]

I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that there's two versions of this update. Indeed, when I uninstalled it, everything it broke came back to life, but in spite of turning off auto-update, it insisted on continuing to try to install during Shutdown, and in fact did so on one laptop late on the 11th, and promptly broke everything again. I would expect there to be a different KB superseding this one rather than cause infinite confusion . . . so unless you've got something definitive by which you can actually identify different versions . . . other than anecdotal machine behavior after installing it . . . the presumption MUST be there is one, and only one version of this KB. Anything else is . . . literally . . . just a wild-ass guess . . . pure speculation.

I would also expect Microsloth to have announced quite loudly and extensively that is has reissued a new version of the update with instructions on how to uninstall and eradicate the bad one. Secretly changing it and not telling anyone is just as bad, if not worse, than having issued a KB that is breaking so many things as those like me who have uninstalled it are not about to install it again as it's breaking things I need to use, and that completely defeats fixing it and not telling anyone.

John

 

[UsernameIssues]

I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that there's two versions of this update.

The version in the screenshots in my OP show an update that was published on 12 Nov.

Maybe the publish date can change without the KB changing... but it sure looks like a new offering. Those that hid the update will be offered it again if the update has indeed changed.


CBS.log indicates the install on the 10th and the 11th was:
KB3097877~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.1

CBS.log indicates the install on the 12th was:
KB3097877~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.2

Makes me wonder if I missed 6.1.1.0.


...or maybe those log entries don't mean what I think they mean.

 

[Urthboundmisfit]

Yes KB3097877 was reissued/re-offered on my Win 7 Pro (no issues)...


https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS15-115

 

[UsernameIssues]

Here is one of the files that KB3097877 updates:





The first screenshot shows what KB3097877 installed into one of my VMs on 10 Nov.

The second screenshot shows what a different version of KB3097877 installed into that same VMs on 12 Nov.


edit:
So, a file dated 17 Oct is published on 10 Nov.
and a file dated 03 Nov is published on 12 Nov.
(released late on 11 Nov.)
I wonder if they new there were issues with the first version and were already testing the second version.

 

[UsernameIssues]

Yes KB3097877 was reissued/re-offered on my Win 7 Pro (no issues)...
View attachment 375690

https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS15-115

Sure. Look on technet

Wish I had thought of that.

Thanks.

 

[Brds7t7]

I've also had two. One was installed last night and I received it again today.

 

[Layback Bear]

I removed and hid KB3097877 Yesterday and got a new re-issue again today.
Just hid it again.
KB3097877 was screwing up my Realtek Audio on two computers.

 

[StuartMcArthur]

Hello all,

Found this error late yesterday on some of our 60 or so field devices, scattered all over the country. Today we managed to use Kaseya to run a couple of scripts and force the machine to log in as the administrator account, once it was logged in we could connect remotely, remove the update, disable automatic updates (these tablets are on the verge of being phased out anyway) and then change the registry keys we had changed in the scripts back to their defaults. All in all, close to a best case scenario considering where we were yesterday.

 

[UsernameIssues]

I removed and hid KB3097877 Yesterday and got a new re-issue again today.
Just hid it again.
KB3097877 was screwing up my Realtek Audio on two computers.

It would be nice to know for sure if the new version still messes up Realtek Audio... but only if you have an image that you can restore to.

 

[UsernameIssues]

Hello all,

Found this error late yesterday on some of our 60 or so field devices, scattered all over the country. Today we managed to use Kaseya to run a couple of scripts and force the machine to log in as the administrator account, once it was logged in we could connect remotely, remove the update, disable automatic updates (these tablets are on the verge of being phased out anyway) and then change the registry keys we had changed in the scripts back to their defaults. All in all, close to a best case scenario considering where we were yesterday.

Nice job getting them operational.

Are you going to risk installing the new version?

 

[StuartMcArthur]

Are you going to risk installing the new version?

Not a chance, on the other side of my desk is the new version of the tablet, tested and ready to be ordered. Not worth the (potential) trouble.

 

[jamis]

Yesterday, I hid this update. After today's update check, it is gone from the hidden list and back in the update list. I will hide it again, not do this week's updates, and wonder how many times MS will re-issue it.

 

[jalind]

I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that there's two versions of this update.

The version in the screenshots in my OP show an update that was published on 12 Nov.

Maybe the publish date can change without the KB changing... but it sure looks like a new offering. Those that hid the update will be offered it again if the update has indeed changed.


CBS.log indicates the install on the 10th and the 11th was:
KB3097877~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.1

CBS.log indicates the install on the 12th was:
KB3097877~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.2

Makes me wonder if I missed 6.1.1.0.


...or maybe those log entries don't mean what I think they mean.

Yes . . . it was updated to a new version . . . but getting that to install on five machines here was a real chore. I found the reference to it buried in MS's docs on the update. You would think they would headline it instead of hiding it. For whatever reason v1 installed yesterday and it persisted as the version that would be installed on all the machines even after uninstalling it and trying a reinstall. The process I finally used to get the revised version to install:

1. Downloaded the standalone KB install and installed it instead of using Windows Update . . . after ensuring the KB had been uninstalled. All the stuff still broke and looking at file version numbers showed a mix of original files (prior to update) and v1 versions. I was left wondering if the standalone was still v1 (downloaded it this morning), but wasn't going to spend the time ripping into the msu file to investigate. It is (or was as of this morning) still v1, or in the process v1 was still present on the machines and that was used in lieu of the standalone file as the msu first looks for installed updates.

2. Without uninstalling v1 (or whatever it was) I went into Windows Update and discovered the KB listed there as a critical update waiting for installation. Directed Windows Update to download and install it to see what would happen. That apparently pulled down v2 and installed it over the top of v1. Everything magically worked again afterward.

This turned into a time consuming chore on five machines. Those with many more to support have my sympathy for the effort they will expend having to recover from this debacle. Too bad MS can't be billed for the manhours of time they consumed with this . . . the cost of that would convince them not to release stuff that obviously hasn't been adequately tested.

 

[UsernameIssues]

You could send MS a bill for your labor...
...then MS could start charging you for every update