Why is the svchost 100% CPU use Bug Not Being Fixed By Microsoft?

Hi,

What in the world is the deal with svchost running at 100% and preventing updates? This has hit all my XP machines at about the same time. It is not malware (I've run exhaustive AV checks) but apparently a bug that for some reason MS is not fixing(?) Or what? I have tried everything, all KB patches, I even did a fresh reinstall on one machine and it's worse than ever on this machine. To not be able to update is a mission critical issue. What please is going on? I know XP support ends in a few months but something glaring like this must be fixed.

Plus, after failed attempts to update, svchost continues to use 100% and some services slow to a creeping halt!

Please, does anyone know what's going on?

Thanks

goldtech wrote:
Hi,

What in the world is the deal with svchost running at 100% and preventing updates? This has hit all my XP machines at about the same time. It is not malware (I've run exhaustive AV checks) but apparently a bug that for some reason MS is not fixing(?) Or what? I have tried everything, all KB patches, I even did a fresh reinstall on one machine and it's worse than ever on this machine. To not be able to update is a mission critical issue. What please is going on? I know XP support ends in a few months but something glaring like this must be fixed.

Plus, after failed attempts to update, svchost continues to use 100% and some services slow to a creeping halt!

Please, does anyone know what's going on?

Thanks

I have a theory.

The Windows Update server at Microsoft, keeps a
manifest of updates to be offered.

Your client machine queries the manifest.

Every time that a new Internet Explorer security
patch shows up, the wuauserv on the client computer,
begins to evaluate the chain of previous updates. Like,
what updates does this update replace ? The chain
is very large for Internet Explorer, and the wuauserv
goes off in a CPU loop for more than 30 minutes.
(This is a bug, not a feature - it should only take a second.)
Eventually, the software comes up with an answer, and
the CPU usage stops. Since Windows Update gets queried on
at least a daily basis, you will see this "calculation"
over and over again. Very bad on a single core computer.

If you manually go from machine to machine,
and push out the pending Internet Explorer update,
then the next time the machine queries Windows Update,
there is no chain to compute for Internet Explorer.
Then the CPU usage should stop.

Until the next Internet Explorer update shows up, which
is roughly monthly.

The last update I downloaded manually from Microsoft,
was WindowsXP-KB2898785-x86-ENU.exe . I installed it,
and my Windows Update 100% CPU stopped.

The date on this is Dec.10, 2013. You can get some files
here to test the theory with. Try updating a machine
with the CPU loop, and see if the problem stops.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s...letin/ms13-097

Installing that is a workaround, not a solution. The very
next time a different KB comes along for Internet Explorer,
the thing will go into a CPU loop again.

Something in wuauserv needs to be fixed. Will Microsoft
fix it before April ? Only if it affects some OS
other than WinXP.

Paul

Todd wrote:
On 12/19/2013 12:32 AM, goldtech wrote:
Hi,

What in the world is the deal with svchost running at 100% and preventing
updates? This has hit all my XP machines at about the same time. It is
not
malware (I've run exhaustive AV checks) but apparently a bug that for
some
reason MS is not fixing(?) Or what? I have tried everything, all KB
patches,
I even did a fresh reinstall on one machine and it's worse than ever on
this
machine. To not be able to update is a mission critical issue. What
please
is going on? I know XP support ends in a few months but something glaring
like this must be fixed. Plus, after failed attempts to update,
svchost continues to use 100% and
some services slow to a creeping halt! Please, does anyone know what's
going on?

Thanks


Hi Gold,

I came across the same thing. Only the customer was viruses
to the gills. Every time he tried to do anything network wise,
svchost went nuts. I left him scanning. He hasn't called me back.

Did your customer occasionally lose his mouse too?

-T

Maybe somebody here can post at what point, and with what specific update,
this whole thing started happening. And then those who want to install
updates can just decide to install all the updates up to that point, and
just leave it there?

Yes, I know, that precludes getting all the future updates to allegedly
secure your machine, but is this lurking svchost issue (and all the others
reported in here) worth all this aggravation? Last time I had a svchost
issue, I could never track it down (since svchost hosts so many services),
and I was only able to get it "fixed" by updating from XP SP2 to SP3. And
that was even with some help from Paul. :-)

See http://marc.info/?l=patchmanagement&...6900324972&w=2 from
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...3-8934e626f218
....


On 12/19/2013 12:32 AM PT, goldtech typed:

Hi,

What in the world is the deal with svchost running at 100% and preventing updates? This has hit all my XP machines at about the same time. It is not malware (I've run exhaustive AV checks) but apparently a bug that for some reason MS is not fixing(?) Or what? I have tried everything, all KB patches, I even did a fresh reinstall on one machine and it's worse than ever on this machine. To not be able to update is a mission critical issue. What please is going on? I know XP support ends in a few months but something glaring like this must be fixed.

Plus, after failed attempts to update, svchost continues to use 100% and some services slow to a creeping halt!

Please, does anyone know what's going on?
--
"Don't even step on an ant." --Greek
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.