MS Reissues patch patch 811493

[Jim Macklin]

MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
slow down with 811493.

MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
"read more" link.

[David Qunt]

"Jim Macklin" > squirted these wordjisms deep
inside the bumtube of the news**** in news:OT2LPvVJDHA.700
@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> slow down with 811493.
>
> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> "read more" link.
>
>
>
>

Likewise, the new patch causes no problem here, unlike 811493 (which
conflicted with the Realtime protection element of ETrust EZ Antivirus).

--
Iain McLaren
*********************************
> >A. Top posters
> >Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
************************************************** **

[Gran Salseron]

You might find this story interesting.

I installed winxp a few weeks ago and installed Q811493 which caused a slow
down.

A week or so ago I decided to dual boot with 2k so I formatted and installed
2k
on another partition then installed xp on the original partition. When
doing updates
I absent-mindedly click on Q811493 and installed it.

No slow down this time. Same hardware config. Same everything except for
installing
2k on a partition that already existed.

However, I did get an auto-update message this morning and installed Q815021
with no ill effects.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> slow down with 811493.
>
> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> "read more" link.
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 05/27/2003

[Unknown]

I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634 is the new
811493 and not 815021.
It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if I am wrong..
"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> slow down with 811493.
>
> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> "read more" link.
>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

When the new update "more information" link referred back to
dates of previous problem update it seemed that 811493 was
the update being referred to. 819634 is not an update, but
instructions to either remove 811493 or stop real-time virus
scanning.

Perhaps I jumped the gun, but it seemed that it was/is a fix
for 811493.

Any MVP with a full story?


"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
| I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe
819634 is the new
| 811493 and not 815021.
| It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me
if I am wrong..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
| ...
| > MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
| > defective 811493. I have installed this "critical"
patch
| > and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which
did
| > slow down with 811493.
| >
| > MS does give the history of this incident, if you click
the
| > "read more" link.
| >
| >
| >
|
|

[Kent W. England [MVP]]

I think you are correct. 819634 is an advisory and 811493 is an update
of 811493. I have read reports from other MVPs who have installed it on
XP and solved the slowdown problem that they were having with the
original update, but it might still not be right in all situations, so
caution is still advised.

--
Kent W. England, Microsoft MVP for Windows



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> When the new update "more information" link referred back to
> dates of previous problem update it seemed that 811493 was
> the update being referred to. 819634 is not an update, but
> instructions to either remove 811493 or stop real-time virus
> scanning.
>
> Perhaps I jumped the gun, but it seemed that it was/is a fix
> for 811493.
>
> Any MVP with a full story?
>
>
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> | I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe
> 819634 is the new
> | 811493 and not 815021.
> | It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me
> if I am wrong..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> | > defective 811493. I have installed this "critical"
> patch
> | > and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which
> did
> | > slow down with 811493.
> | >
> | > MS does give the history of this incident, if you click
> the
> | > "read more" link.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Tom Lake]

"Kent W. England [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> I think you are correct. 819634 is an advisory and 811493 is an update
> of 811493. I have read reports from other MVPs who have installed it on
> XP and solved the slowdown problem that they were having with the
> original update, but it might still not be right in all situations, so
> caution is still advised.

My Critical Update notice loaded 811493 again and this time no slowdown.
The date on the new 811493 is 5/28/03.

Tom Lake

[johnf]

> "Kent W. England [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I think you are correct. 819634 is an advisory and 811493 is an
>> update of 811493. I have read reports from other MVPs who have
>> installed it on XP and solved the slowdown problem that they were
>> having with the original update, but it might still not be right in
>> all situations, so caution is still advised.
>
> My Critical Update notice loaded 811493 again and this time no
> slowdown. The date on the new 811493 is 5/28/03.
>
> Tom Lake

5/28/03 is the date you downloaded it, which is its "accessed" date, not its
creation date.

I've just downloaded it to my Desktop & the full file specs are -
Q811493_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU
Created: Friday, 23 May 2003, 7:15:43 AM
File Version: 5.3.16.5

(I think the SP2 is probably significant).


(To reply direct, please ensure address ends with .au)
johnf

[user@domain.invalid]

johnf wrote:
>>"Kent W. England [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I think you are correct. 819634 is an advisory and 811493 is an
>>>update of 811493. I have read reports from other MVPs who have
>>>installed it on XP and solved the slowdown problem that they were
>>>having with the original update, but it might still not be right in
>>>all situations, so caution is still advised.
>>
>>My Critical Update notice loaded 811493 again and this time no
>>slowdown. The date on the new 811493 is 5/28/03.
>>
>>Tom Lake
>
>
> 5/28/03 is the date you downloaded it, which is its "accessed" date, not its
> creation date.

I think MS terms it 'release' date and it does definitely install newer
files like ntkrpa.exe, and others, with version numbers 5.1.2600.1151

It's way better now!(So far that is...)

>
> I've just downloaded it to my Desktop & the full file specs are -
> Q811493_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU
> Created: Friday, 23 May 2003, 7:15:43 AM
> File Version: 5.3.16.5
>
> (I think the SP2 is probably significant).
>
>
> (To reply direct, please ensure address ends with .au)
> johnf
>
>

[Tom Lake]

> > My Critical Update notice loaded 811493 again and this time no
> > slowdown. The date on the new 811493 is 5/28/03.
> >
> > Tom Lake
>
> 5/28/03 is the date you downloaded it, which is its "accessed" date, not
its
> creation date.

The date on the Windows Update site says May 28, 2003

Tom L

[Pete Baker]

Just downloaded 811493 and all seems well, in contrast to previous
experience.

What I think is significant is that 811493 has now been re-instated as a
Critical Update. After the reports of problems with this update previously
Microsoft had temporarily reclassified it as a Recommended Update (found in
the 'WindowsXP' folder on the update site).

FWIW

Pete
-----------------
"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> > "Kent W. England [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I think you are correct. 819634 is an advisory and 811493 is an
> >> update of 811493. I have read reports from other MVPs who have
> >> installed it on XP and solved the slowdown problem that they were
> >> having with the original update, but it might still not be right in
> >> all situations, so caution is still advised.
> >
> > My Critical Update notice loaded 811493 again and this time no
> > slowdown. The date on the new 811493 is 5/28/03.
> >
> > Tom Lake
>
> 5/28/03 is the date you downloaded it, which is its "accessed" date, not
its
> creation date.
>
> I've just downloaded it to my Desktop & the full file specs are -
> Q811493_WXP_SP2_x86_ENU
> Created: Friday, 23 May 2003, 7:15:43 AM
> File Version: 5.3.16.5
>
> (I think the SP2 is probably significant).
>
>
> (To reply direct, please ensure address ends with .au)
> johnf
>
>

[Marc Liron]

Hi,

At LAST Microsoft have released a revised Security Patch
for Q811493.

For those of you who were waiting for the new patch that
will NOT slow down your XP system:

http://www.updatexp.com/q811493.html

I have installed the revised Q811493 with no problems.

Marc

[Unknown]

OK! Reset to zero.
1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit) did you now get
811493 as an update when attempting to update?
2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for 811493?
3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem) Will you get an
update notice or did you get an update notice for the new 811493?
Lets clarify the situations.
"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634 is the new
> 811493 and not 815021.
> It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if I am wrong..
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> > defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> > and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> > slow down with 811493.
> >
> > MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> > "read more" link.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Pete Baker]

Ok

1. Yes, since 811493 has now been re-instated as a Critical Update.
2. Is a separate update, whether it is connected to 811493 or not.
3. Not sure (didn't apply in my case) but I would imagine not. Theory
would be - anyone experiencing a problem with 811493 previously would be
expected to uninstall. If you had no problem you wouldn't need the new
version. Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
be listed as an available update.

Pete
----------
"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> OK! Reset to zero.
> 1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit) did you now
get
> 811493 as an update when attempting to update?
> 2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for 811493?
> 3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem) Will you get
an
> update notice or did you get an update notice for the new 811493?
> Lets clarify the situations.
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634 is the new
> > 811493 and not 815021.
> > It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if I am
wrong..
> > "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> > > defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> > > and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> > > slow down with 811493.
> > >
> > > MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> > > "read more" link.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Unknown]

Disregard above. Results----815021 has nothing to do with 811493 and is NOT
a replacement for it. The new 811493 will be available via auto or manual
updating whether or not the old 811493 was deleted. Thanks!
"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> OK! Reset to zero.
> 1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit) did you now
get
> 811493 as an update when attempting to update?
> 2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for 811493?
> 3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem) Will you get
an
> update notice or did you get an update notice for the new 811493?
> Lets clarify the situations.
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634 is the new
> > 811493 and not 815021.
> > It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if I am
wrong..
> > "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> > > defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> > > and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> > > slow down with 811493.
> > >
> > > MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> > > "read more" link.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Ken Blake]

In m, Unknown
wrote:

> Disregard above. Results----815021 has nothing to do with
811493 and
> is NOT a replacement for it. The new 811493 will be available
via
> auto or manual updating whether or not the old 811493 was
deleted.


Do you or anyone else know whether the new 811493 will be
installed automatically on those machines which already have the
old 811493 installed?

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup



> Thanks! "Unknown" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
>> OK! Reset to zero.
>> 1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit)
did you
>> now get 811493 as an update when attempting to update?
>> 2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for
811493?
>> 3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem)
Will
>> you get an update notice or did you get an update notice for
the new
>> 811493?
>> Lets clarify the situations.
>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> gy.com...
>>> I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634
is
>>> the new 811493 and not 815021.
>>> It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if
I am
>>> wrong.. "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
message
>>> ...
>>>> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
>>>> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
>>>> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
>>>> slow down with 811493.
>>>>
>>>> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
>>>> "read more" link.

[Unknown]

Should be, based on my experience. I.E. I did not remove the old update.
When I clicked on windows update and then 'scan for updates' it presented
811493. (I don't use autoupdate). This I did this morning. Yesterday,
5-28-03 the update was not available.
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In m, Unknown
> wrote:
>
> > Disregard above. Results----815021 has nothing to do with
> 811493 and
> > is NOT a replacement for it. The new 811493 will be available
> via
> > auto or manual updating whether or not the old 811493 was
> deleted.
>
>
> Do you or anyone else know whether the new 811493 will be
> installed automatically on those machines which already have the
> old 811493 installed?
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>
> > Thanks! "Unknown" > wrote in message
> > gy.com...
> >> OK! Reset to zero.
> >> 1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit)
> did you
> >> now get 811493 as an update when attempting to update?
> >> 2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for
> 811493?
> >> 3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem)
> Will
> >> you get an update notice or did you get an update notice for
> the new
> >> 811493?
> >> Lets clarify the situations.
> >> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> >> gy.com...
> >>> I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634
> is
> >>> the new 811493 and not 815021.
> >>> It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if
> I am
> >>> wrong.. "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> message
> >>> ...
> >>>> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
> >>>> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
> >>>> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
> >>>> slow down with 811493.
> >>>>
> >>>> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
> >>>> "read more" link.
>
>

[Jon]

"Unknown" > wrote in message =
gy.com...
> Should be, based on my experience. I.E. I did not remove the old =
update.
> When I clicked on windows update and then 'scan for updates' it =
presented
> 811493. (I don't use autoupdate). This I did this morning. Yesterday,
> 5-28-03 the update was not available.

To digress,

I downloaded the updated version of 811493, as well as the other =
security update, and was glad to see that the slowdown issue is =
resolved, on my end anyway. No problems at all as opposed to before.

[Parkers-Georgia & Bob]

"Pete Baker" <petebkrAThotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
> be listed as an available update.>>

I installed the old one weeks ago. Had no problems. It is still installed.
Yet when I got the little notification pop-up today, the "new" one was on
the list. I went to the MS update site and did the scan, and it also came up
on THAT list. I see no reason to install this new one when the old one is
fine. But MS is making it available to me, and I am assuming that the scan
of my computer shows that I already have ONE of those on it. Crazy!

So hoping an MVP will be able to tell us why we are supposed to install the
new one if the old one is fine, and how do we get rid of it popping up on
the update lists forever?

Georgia

[Pete Baker]

Hi Georgia

I'll make no claims to be infallible on this but, if it was my system, I'd
follow the usual routine and install the critical update. It would remove
the possibility of the 'old' update having a problem with any new
applications you might install in the future.

I assume that the 'new' update will install without a problem. To be
completely safe create a restore point before you install it,
then check your installed updates list afterwards.

Pete
---------------

"Parkers-Georgia & Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete Baker" <petebkrAThotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
> > be listed as an available update.>>
>
> I installed the old one weeks ago. Had no problems. It is still installed.
> Yet when I got the little notification pop-up today, the "new" one was on
> the list. I went to the MS update site and did the scan, and it also came
up
> on THAT list. I see no reason to install this new one when the old one is
> fine. But MS is making it available to me, and I am assuming that the scan
> of my computer shows that I already have ONE of those on it. Crazy!
>
> So hoping an MVP will be able to tell us why we are supposed to install
the
> new one if the old one is fine, and how do we get rid of it popping up on
> the update lists forever?
>
> Georgia
>
>

[Unknown]

The new one installs without error or problems. The new 811493 is not the
same as the old one. It is a ner version and corrects the problems the old
version caused.
"Parkers-Georgia & Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete Baker" <petebkrAThotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
> > be listed as an available update.>>
>
> I installed the old one weeks ago. Had no problems. It is still installed.
> Yet when I got the little notification pop-up today, the "new" one was on
> the list. I went to the MS update site and did the scan, and it also came
up
> on THAT list. I see no reason to install this new one when the old one is
> fine. But MS is making it available to me, and I am assuming that the scan
> of my computer shows that I already have ONE of those on it. Crazy!
>
> So hoping an MVP will be able to tell us why we are supposed to install
the
> new one if the old one is fine, and how do we get rid of it popping up on
> the update lists forever?
>
> Georgia
>
>

[Jason Tsang]

The old one would still have the potential to cause problems. If you
installed a program that did not work well with the older version of the
811493 patch, you'll have the slowdowns.

The newer version does not exhibit the same problem as before, so it is
probably in your best interests to update it.

--
Jason Tsang - Microsoft MVP

Find out about the MS MVP Program -
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx

"Parkers-Georgia & Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete Baker" <petebkrAThotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
> > be listed as an available update.>>
>
> I installed the old one weeks ago. Had no problems. It is still installed.
> Yet when I got the little notification pop-up today, the "new" one was on
> the list. I went to the MS update site and did the scan, and it also came
up
> on THAT list. I see no reason to install this new one when the old one is
> fine. But MS is making it available to me, and I am assuming that the scan
> of my computer shows that I already have ONE of those on it. Crazy!
>
> So hoping an MVP will be able to tell us why we are supposed to install
the
> new one if the old one is fine, and how do we get rid of it popping up on
> the update lists forever?
>
> Georgia
>
>

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Ken Blake wrote:
> In m, Unknown
> wrote:
>
>> Disregard above. Results----815021 has nothing to do with 811493 and
>> is NOT a replacement for it. The new 811493 will be available via
>> auto or manual updating whether or not the old 811493 was deleted.
>
>
> Do you or anyone else know whether the new 811493 will be
> installed automatically on those machines which already have the
> old 811493 installed?
>
>
>> Thanks! "Unknown" > wrote in message
>> gy.com...
>>> OK! Reset to zero.
>>> 1. If you previously deleted 811493 (the slow down culprit) did you
>>> now get 811493 as an update when attempting to update?
>>> 2. Do you all agree that 815021 is NOT a replacement for 811493?
>>> 3. If you did NOT delete 811493 (because you had no problem) Will
>>> you get an update notice or did you get an update notice for the new
>>> 811493?
>>> Lets clarify the situations.
>>> "Unknown" > wrote in message
>>> gy.com...
>>>> I think you fellows have your numbers wrong. I believe 819634 is
>>>> the new 811493 and not 815021.
>>>> It seems 815021 is not even related to 811493. Correct me if I am
>>>> wrong.. "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> MS has issued 815021, which is a replacement for the
>>>>> defective 811493. I have installed this "critical" patch
>>>>> and it does not cause any slow-down on my machine, which did
>>>>> slow down with 811493.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS does give the history of this incident, if you click the
>>>>> "read more" link.

The new patch will replace the original patch. It has also been seen to
reverse the slowdown issue in testing.

MS03-013: Buffer Overrun in Windows Kernel Message Handling Could Lead to
Elevated Privileges:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811493


--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.

For a better way to access these newsgroups look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp

[Unknown]

I had the old version of 811493 installed and had no problem. (I don't run
virus scanners) When clicking on microsoft update the new 811493 was there.
I downloaded and installed.---No problems.
"Parkers-Georgia & Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete Baker" <petebkrAThotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Since it's the same Reference (811493) it's doubtful that it would
> > be listed as an available update.>>
>
> I installed the old one weeks ago. Had no problems. It is still installed.
> Yet when I got the little notification pop-up today, the "new" one was on
> the list. I went to the MS update site and did the scan, and it also came
up
> on THAT list. I see no reason to install this new one when the old one is
> fine. But MS is making it available to me, and I am assuming that the scan
> of my computer shows that I already have ONE of those on it. Crazy!
>
> So hoping an MVP will be able to tell us why we are supposed to install
the
> new one if the old one is fine, and how do we get rid of it popping up on
> the update lists forever?
>
> Georgia
>
>

[Ken Blake]

In , Ronnie Vernon MVP
wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:

>> Do you or anyone else know whether the new 811493 will be
>> installed automatically on those machines which already have
the
>> old 811493 installed?


> The new patch will replace the original patch.


Thank you.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup