Installing today's Office 2000 security update (KB892842) withoutCD part failed.

[Phillip Pi]

Hello!

This happened on two different old Windows 2000 SP4 (almost all updates)
machines so far.

Since I don't have Office 2000 SR-1 Premium CDs with me, I have to use
the detection tool to use the larger updates (Internet connection isn't
a problem at work ). During the installations, the 3.3 MB update
failed to install.

Using the smaller updates and install from a network share, where I got
Office 2000 files from, worked BUT I get one or two old update(s) from
years ago (Outlook 2000 Update from 12/18/2002 and/or Outlook 2000
Collaboration Data Objects (CDO) Security Update from 6/30/2000)!

I couldn't find any Office update logs to include in this newsgroup
post. Did I find a bug and did I mess up my Office 2000 installations?
Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services and Norton SystemWorks (PC)
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[mvl_groups_user]

Using the smaller updates and install from a network share, where I got
Office 2000 files from, worked BUT I get one or two old update(s) from
years ago (Outlook 2000 Update from 12/18/2002 and/or Outlook 2000
Collaboration Data Objects (CDO) Security Update from 6/30/2000)!

I have the same problem and I remember problems with these two updates
in the past.

I'm still scouring old newsgroups, but it has something to do with
multiple versions of dll's on the computer (some from MS office,
separate ones from MS project, etc). If I remember right, the latest
version has to replace all copies on your computer (office update only
looks in 1 location), then the dll has to be unregistered/reregistered
with regsrv.

-MVL

 

[Phillip Pi]

I have the same problem and I remember problems with these two updates
in the past.

I'm still scouring old newsgroups, but it has something to do with
multiple versions of dll's on the computer (some from MS office,
separate ones from MS project, etc). If I remember right, the latest
version has to replace all copies on your computer (office update only
looks in 1 location), then the dll has to be unregistered/reregistered
with regsrv.

Well, since this problem is reproducable on multiple machines with some
people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services and Norton SystemWorks (PC)
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[SE in Edwardsville, IL]

I'm having a similar problem regarding the 1/10/06 Outlook update corrupting
the 12/18/02 Outlook update when running Outlook 2000. I have the Office
2000 SR-1 Premium CD's and tried the smaller updates. When this didn't work,
I reverted my system and tried to use the larger files (curiously, the
installation still requested that I insert the CD even when using the larger
"CD-less" files). I'd appreciate any insights or suggestions you might be
able to provide.

I've included a copy of my post to the Outlook Community below:

My system is running on the Windows 2000 Professional operating system with
Microsoft Office 2000 Premium applications.

I had previously applied the December 18, 2002 Outlook 2000 update and the
installation was successful and showed up on my installed updates list for
Office applications.

When I installed the January 10, 2006 Outlook 2000 update it installed
successfully; however, when I returned to the Office Update page and searched
for possible additional updates, the site indicated that I needed to install
the December 2002 update. When I rechecked my installed updates list, the
December 2002 update was no longer shown. When I tried to download and
reinstall the December 2002 update it was unsuccessful.

When I revert my system to prior to the January 10,2006 Outlook update, the
December 2002 Outlook update shows up again as an installed update.

I have tried downloading both the long and short versions of both the 2002
and 2006 Outlook updates and had the same results.

Any suggestions on how to circumvent this problem and successfully apply
both the December 18, 2002 and January 10, 2006 Outlook updates?

 

[Phillip Pi]

It is weird at home, I had no problems with old Office 2000 in XP Pro.
SP2 (all updates). And yes, it did ask for my CD too. Something is not
right.

I'm having a similar problem regarding the 1/10/06 Outlook update corrupting
the 12/18/02 Outlook update when running Outlook 2000. I have the Office
2000 SR-1 Premium CD's and tried the smaller updates. When this didn't work,
I reverted my system and tried to use the larger files (curiously, the
installation still requested that I insert the CD even when using the larger
"CD-less" files). I'd appreciate any insights or suggestions you might be
able to provide.

I've included a copy of my post to the Outlook Community below:

My system is running on the Windows 2000 Professional operating system with
Microsoft Office 2000 Premium applications.

I had previously applied the December 18, 2002 Outlook 2000 update and the
installation was successful and showed up on my installed updates list for
Office applications.

When I installed the January 10, 2006 Outlook 2000 update it installed
successfully; however, when I returned to the Office Update page and searched
for possible additional updates, the site indicated that I needed to install
the December 2002 update. When I rechecked my installed updates list, the
December 2002 update was no longer shown. When I tried to download and
reinstall the December 2002 update it was unsuccessful.

When I revert my system to prior to the January 10,2006 Outlook update, the
December 2002 Outlook update shows up again as an installed update.

I have tried downloading both the long and short versions of both the 2002
and 2006 Outlook updates and had the same results.

Any suggestions on how to circumvent this problem and successfully apply
both the December 18, 2002 and January 10, 2006 Outlook updates?


:

--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services and Norton SystemWorks (PC)
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Jds]

I have removed Office 2000 from the computer (Windows 2000 SP4 +SR1)

I reinstalled office 2000 SR1 then ran SP3 then went to the office update to
get what was left.

Went back to updates now it only states that the Outlook Collaboration Data
Objects (CDO) Update: Security (English Version) is missing.

The other update [Outlook 2000 Update: December 18, 2002 (English Version)]
is gone (Assume it incorporated it when updated this time).

So reinstalling resolves at least one update.

Now if we can figure out how to get CDO update to stick (when I install it,
it says it was completed successfully but then when I go back to check
updates it shows up).

My early thought was that disk clean up ran and removed the temp files for
office 2000 [temp directories in my local settings and in the windows (for
some winnt) directory].

Due to reinstalling the product I think I might be on to missing files
during the new patch, if it does not see the logic (or files from the earlier
patch) then it can include it in the file re-build.

I am assuming the patch grabs the SR1 file from the CD (Which is required
even though I downloaded the full file patch) then applies the December patch
(which was download at the same time from office update) then applies the
January patch.

But I do not know what to do now?

I hope this helps someone and if anyone figures out how to get rid of the
CDO patch I am all ears.

 

[Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)]

Well, since this problem is reproducable on multiple machines with some
people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.

Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec, surely you
understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient software, and product
lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000 products expired on June 30,
2004. While extended support does not expire until June 2009, extended
support only provides security fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in Norton
Antivirus 2000.

No?

 

[Jds]

Lawrence Garvin,

However, Microsoft released a patch on 1/10/2006 so it seems they are still
supporting office 2000.

And this patch corrupts or causes issues, I would think they would have
stabilized their patch before sending it out... seems they did not.

If Symantec made an update to Norton Anti-Virus 2000 and it broke the
product, I would assume symantec would either re-call the update and/or they
would correct the patch so it functions correctly.

I as a cutomer did not ask Microsoft to release a patch (I am glad they
released a patch), but they did and it broke the product which for me I feel
they should take the time to correct the patch at this time.

If I recall they still have a large user base on Office 2000 (this is the
reason why they release an update anyway) to say here is a fix, but there are
side effects that are just as bad as the what the fix provides to fix.

I think Microsoft will fix this issue, if they read their own news groups...

--
Jds

Well, since this problem is reproducable on multiple machines with some
people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.

Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec, surely you
understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient software, and product
lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000 products expired on June 30,
2004. While extended support does not expire until June 2009, extended
support only provides security fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in Norton
Antivirus 2000.

No?

 

[Ant]

Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec, surely you
understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient software, and product
lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000 products expired on June 30,
2004. While extended support does not expire until June 2009, extended
support only provides security fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in Norton
Antivirus 2000.

No?

If that is the case, then why did MS release this update?
--
"I could crush him like an ant. But it would be too easy. No, revenge is
a dish best served cold. I'll bide my time until... Oh, what the hell,
I'll just crush him like an ant." --Mr. Burns, The Simpsons ("Blood
Feud" Episode 7F22)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

 

[Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)]

Lawrence Garvin,

However, Microsoft released a patch on 1/10/2006 so it seems they are
still
supporting office 2000.

A S E C U R I T Y patch! which they will continue to do until June
2009.

But functional bugs... or compatibility with new products.... you're stuck.

And this patch corrupts or causes issues, I would think they would have
stabilized their patch before sending it out... seems they did not.

I'm sure they tested it in a pure Office 2000 on Windows XP environment with
no third party products present. That is the extent of their obligation to
test.

If it doesn't coexist with other third party products, there's not much
anybody is going to do about that, except upgrade your old software.

If Symantec made an update to Norton Anti-Virus 2000

The first big IF.

and it broke the
product, I would assume symantec would either re-call the update and/or
they
would correct the patch so it functions correctly.

Ironically, we have a log list of issues /current/ Symantec products have
caused with core operating system functionality, so, and being a Symantec
partner as well, I'm still skeptical that such would happen.

As I recall, Symantec's position, for example, on deprecated Norton AV
products is that "they do not install on Windows XP SP2 systems, and never
will".

I as a cutomer did not ask Microsoft to release a patch (I am glad they
released a patch), but they did and it broke the product which for me I
feel
they should take the time to correct the patch at this time.

If you didn't ask for the patch, and it doesn't work, then uninstall it and
suffer through the inherent security vulnerability that's apparently existed
for the past five years. Shucks, if it hasn't been an issue for the past
five, it probably won't be for the next five.

If I recall they still have a large user base on Office 2000 (this is the
reason why they release an update anyway) to say here is a fix, but there
are
side effects that are just as bad as the what the fix provides to fix.

No, they released a SECURITY update because they have a published product
lifecycle that says they WILL release SECURITY updates for that product
until June, 2009.

I think Microsoft will fix this issue, if they read their own news
groups...

Not unless you can demonstrate that the problem is reproducable on a virgin
Office 2000 SP3 system running on Windows XP SP2. If you can, then I would
suggest you contact Product Support Services directly.

 

[Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]]

Hint: extended support only provides security fixes.
Office 2000 security update KB is a security related update, and therefore
covered.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Ant asked:

| On 1/12/2006 8:15 PM PT, Lawrence Garvin (MVP) wrote:
|
|
||| Well, since this problem is reproducable on multiple machines with
||| some people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.
||
||
|| Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.
||
|| As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec,
|| surely you understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient
|| software, and product lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000
|| products expired on June 30, 2004. While extended support does not
|| expire until June 2009, extended support only provides security
|| fixes and fee-based support.
||
|| Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in
|| Norton Antivirus 2000.
||
|| No?
|
| If that is the case, then why did MS release this update?

 

[Phillip Pi]

The first big IF.

I highly doubt that will happen. That is way too old. I haven't seen an
update for it for years. I did see a couple updates for NAV 2002, but
that was core parts and virus definitions.

If you didn't ask for the patch, and it doesn't work, then uninstall it and
suffer through the inherent security vulnerability that's apparently existed
for the past five years. Shucks, if it hasn't been an issue for the past
five, it probably won't be for the next five.

How do you uninstall Office 2000 patches? I don't see them. I see SR-1
Premium, but that's not it. I know Office 2003 has uninstallable patches.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Jds]

I spoke with Microsoft today about this issue and they are investigating this
issue.

I will post the results when I get them...

As a side note microsoft told me they will support Office 2000 and Windows
2000 SP4 + SR1 until there end of life, also they told me that if the
security fix broke something then they will fix what was broken by the
security fix.

 

[Bill Drake]

I have done several tests with a newly-generated WXP-SP2
install and a fresh install of O2K - patched with Office Update
using the CD-Install process.

I find that the update process proceeds normally until the
Office 2000 KB892842 (January 10th, 2006 Security Update
for Outlook 2000) patch is installed. The KB892842 patch
is detected as absent, the patchfile is downloaded and the
update is successfully installed - all as per the normal status
reports from the Office Update website.

However, upon re-entering the Office Update website after the
KB892842 Update has been reported by the previous update-cycle
as successful - the Office Update website *now* detects the
December 18th 2002 (note 2002!) update as not installed.

Note: I have also confirmed that MBSA 1.2.1 reports the same error.


Consequently, on this follow-up update-cycle, the already-installed
December 18th Update patch is detected as already-downloaded (0kB
download) and the Update Site attempts to reinstall the already-installed
patch. As expected, the patch-reinstall fails (since it is already
present).

At that point, the Office Update website responds saying something has
gone wrong with the update and suggests the usual set of problem-resolution
suggestions - none of which are relevant to the situation.


I am suspicious that the detection-logic for the presence of the December
18th 2002 update is now obsolete as a result of the changes made by the
January 10th 2006 update.

I suspect the detection logic for the December 18th 2002 update is
seeing the version-information for the patchfiles updated by the January
10th 2006 update. The code for the detection logic for the December
18th 2002 update sees the version-numbers resulting from the January
10th 2006 update as incorrect - and therefore reports that the December
18th 2002 update requires reinstallation.

Then, when the December 18th 2002 update attempts to reinstall, the
version-checking in that patchfile quite rightly prohibits the reinstall
of the December 18th 2002 update over-top of the January 10th 2006
update (version-number regression-prevention in action) and the
result-code for the patch is rightly interpreted by the Office Update site
as an update failure (correctly so).


As mentioned above, the version-detection info for the December 18th
2002 update must be updated so it is not false-triggered in error by
the changes induced by the January 10, 2006 update. This should
prevent the error-cycle noted above from recurring.


Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill

I spoke with Microsoft today about this issue and they are
investigating this issue.

I will post the results when I get them...

As a side note microsoft told me they will support Office 2000 and
Windows 2000 SP4 + SR1 until there end of life, also they told me
that if the security fix broke something then they will fix what was
broken by the security fix.

Hint: extended support only provides security fixes.
Office 2000 security update KB is a security related update, and
therefore covered.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Ant asked:

On 1/12/2006 8:15 PM PT, Lawrence Garvin (MVP) wrote:


Well, since this problem is reproducible on multiple machines with
some people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.


Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec,
surely you understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient
software, and product lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000
products expired on June 30, 2004. While extended support does not
expire until June 2009, extended support only provides security
fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in
Norton Antivirus 2000.

No?

If that is the case, then why did MS release this update?

 

[Phillip Pi]

Bill, that is what I am pretty much seeing on my old Office 2000
installations as well. It looks like clean installations won't fix this
problem. Nice analysis and post.

I have done several tests with a newly-generated WXP-SP2
install and a fresh install of O2K - patched with Office Update
using the CD-Install process.

I find that the update process proceeds normally until the
Office 2000 KB892842 (January 10th, 2006 Security Update
for Outlook 2000) patch is installed. The KB892842 patch
is detected as absent, the patchfile is downloaded and the
update is successfully installed - all as per the normal status
reports from the Office Update website.

However, upon re-entering the Office Update website after the
KB892842 Update has been reported by the previous update-cycle
as successful - the Office Update website *now* detects the
December 18th 2002 (note 2002!) update as not installed.

Note: I have also confirmed that MBSA 1.2.1 reports the same error.


Consequently, on this follow-up update-cycle, the already-installed
December 18th Update patch is detected as already-downloaded (0kB
download) and the Update Site attempts to reinstall the already-installed
patch. As expected, the patch-reinstall fails (since it is already
present).

At that point, the Office Update website responds saying something has
gone wrong with the update and suggests the usual set of problem-resolution
suggestions - none of which are relevant to the situation.


I am suspicious that the detection-logic for the presence of the December
18th 2002 update is now obsolete as a result of the changes made by the
January 10th 2006 update.

I suspect the detection logic for the December 18th 2002 update is
seeing the version-information for the patchfiles updated by the January
10th 2006 update. The code for the detection logic for the December
18th 2002 update sees the version-numbers resulting from the January
10th 2006 update as incorrect - and therefore reports that the December
18th 2002 update requires reinstallation.

Then, when the December 18th 2002 update attempts to reinstall, the
version-checking in that patchfile quite rightly prohibits the reinstall
of the December 18th 2002 update over-top of the January 10th 2006
update (version-number regression-prevention in action) and the
result-code for the patch is rightly interpreted by the Office Update site
as an update failure (correctly so).


As mentioned above, the version-detection info for the December 18th
2002 update must be updated so it is not false-triggered in error by
the changes induced by the January 10, 2006 update. This should
prevent the error-cycle noted above from recurring.


Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill

I spoke with Microsoft today about this issue and they are
investigating this issue.

I will post the results when I get them...

As a side note microsoft told me they will support Office 2000 and
Windows 2000 SP4 + SR1 until there end of life, also they told me
that if the security fix broke something then they will fix what was
broken by the security fix.

Hint: extended support only provides security fixes.
Office 2000 security update KB is a security related update, and
therefore covered.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Ant asked:


On 1/12/2006 8:15 PM PT, Lawrence Garvin (MVP) wrote:



Well, since this problem is reproducible on multiple machines with
some people, I think I will wait for MS to fix this.


Hint:... Microsoft isn't going to fix any bugs in Office 2000.

As a "Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst" for Symantec,
surely you understand the concept of obsolete/abandoned/ancient
software, and product lifecycle. Mainstream support for Office 2000
products expired on June 30, 2004. While extended support does not
expire until June 2009, extended support only provides security
fixes and fee-based support.

Surely it would be the same as me asking Symantec to fix a 'bug' in
Norton Antivirus 2000.

No?

If that is the case, then why did MS release this update?

--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi Bill,

Your anaylysis is correct. There should be a change to correct the detection logic soon, but you are, it appears, protected by the
superceding install working and you could also, it appears, again install the Dec patch as well.

==============
I have done several tests with a newly-generated WXP-SP2
install and a fresh install of O2K - patched with Office Update
using the CD-Install process.

I find that the update process proceeds normally until the
Office 2000 KB892842 (January 10th, 2006 Security Update
for Outlook 2000) patch is installed. The KB892842 patch
is detected as absent, the patchfile is downloaded and the
update is successfully installed - all as per the normal status
reports from the Office Update website.

However, upon re-entering the Office Update website after the
KB892842 Update has been reported by the previous update-cycle
as successful - the Office Update website *now* detects the
December 18th 2002 (note 2002!) update as not installed.

Note: I have also confirmed that MBSA 1.2.1 reports the same error.


Consequently, on this follow-up update-cycle, the already-installed
December 18th Update patch is detected as already-downloaded (0kB
download) and the Update Site attempts to reinstall the already-installed
patch. As expected, the patch-reinstall fails (since it is already
present).

At that point, the Office Update website responds saying something has
gone wrong with the update and suggests the usual set of problem-resolution
suggestions - none of which are relevant to the situation.


I am suspicious that the detection-logic for the presence of the December
18th 2002 update is now obsolete as a result of the changes made by the
January 10th 2006 update.

I suspect the detection logic for the December 18th 2002 update is
seeing the version-information for the patchfiles updated by the January
10th 2006 update. The code for the detection logic for the December
18th 2002 update sees the version-numbers resulting from the January
10th 2006 update as incorrect - and therefore reports that the December
18th 2002 update requires reinstallation.

Then, when the December 18th 2002 update attempts to reinstall, the
version-checking in that patchfile quite rightly prohibits the reinstall
of the December 18th 2002 update over-top of the January 10th 2006
update (version-number regression-prevention in action) and the
result-code for the patch is rightly interpreted by the Office Update site
as an update failure (correctly so).


As mentioned above, the version-detection info for the December 18th
2002 update must be updated so it is not false-triggered in error by
the changes induced by the January 10, 2006 update. This should
prevent the error-cycle noted above from recurring.


Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill >>
--
Let us know if this helped you,

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

For Everyday MS Office tips to "use right away" -
http://microsoft.com/events/series/administrativetipsandtricks.mspx

 

[mvl_groups_user]

The 12/18/02 update's KB article referenced a version of a DLL which
was replaced by by an even newer version by the new security patch. It
appears MS's detection logic was bad in not recognizing the newer dll.

I tried officeupdate again today and the 12/18/02 update no longer
appeared. So it appears MS fixed this issue.

Also, today, the CDO update is behaving differently. It no longer
"fails" upon installation, but after successfully installing it still
appears as "needed" on a next officeupdate scan. Hopefully MS will fix
this one soon too.

-MVL