Re: Package Installer looks fishy

And here's another, related question that I started to post as a new one:
Are there known viruses or other intruders that have been documented as being
able to survive a full nuke and burn of the hard drive?

That is, are there documented cases where you can't get rid of the buggers,
whether you do a full-format reinstall of the disk, or use a Windows 98 disk
to do fdisk/mbr, use things like DBAN or KILLDISK to write 0s to the hard
drive?



"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

The following KB article should resolve all of your issues:

Updates are not installed successfully from Windows Update, from Microsoft
Update, or by using Automatic Updates after you perform a new Windows XP
installation or you repair a Windows XP installation
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943144
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

ElizaDoolittle wrote:
My question is, if I have installed SP3 from a disk, and also installed
the
Package Installer update 942288, isn't it fishy that Windows Update tells
me
I need to install the Package Installer from July 2005?

I have nuked and burned my hard drive an embarrassingly large number of
times, mostly because I keep finding these things that suggest I am hooked
up to a remote server, even though I am a free standing computer.

One thing I noticed is that Windows Update insists that, in order to get
any
other updates, I must first install WGA (all right, already...) and
KB898461, the Package Installer released in July 2005, and last reviewed
in
May 2007. Since then there have been at least two different updates,
including 893802 (which is spelled out as one of the components of SP3)
and
942288.

I have had desktop assistance from two Microsoft techs, one of whom forced
me to install 898461 above my protests, and one who has chased around all
the other fishy things I have found related to this (See my other posts
for
details about that).

Can anyone tell me anything beyond the standard MS line, which is, "If it
is
an update that comes from a Microsoft site, it is safe and effective."

Thanks to all who answer here.


.

Relevant Pages

  • NewestShareware.com Issue #239
    ... your Windows Mobile smartphone in real time. ... Price: 0.00 ... Download file size: 1899 K ... Improved installer. ...
    (comp.software.shareware.announce)
  • Re: Same problem Windows Installer 3.1 v2 will not install.
    ... Windows XP Genuine Advantage Validation Issues ... My Windows Installer 3.1 will not install. ... 2.234: AnalyzePhaseZero used 0 ticks ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Windows update failing
    ... Either malware is causing this, there's interference with the update servers and RPC due to a 3rd party add-on, or the entire issue was caused by Trend OR leftover files from McAfee. ... Can I download a BITS installer and overright? ... I don't think you can move system files from one Vista system to another as in previous Windows OS' due to security descriptors. ... 2/ I think I mentioned that I tried to do a BITS repair and that the repair tool advised that BITS repair was not required - sfc/scannow returns: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Administrator Consoled in Can not install software
    ... I also have the windows installer GPO setting disabled. ... I will be changing the NTFS permissions today like Vera suggested. ... MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
  • Re: Windows Update: KB898461
    ... Microsoft Windows operating systems and for other Microsoft products. ... Software update 898461 installs a permanent copy of the Package Installer ... updates can have a significantly smaller download size. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
Quantcast