Is 2823324 safe now?

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:24:37 -0400, chicagofan wrote:

I never installed 2823324 because of the problems people were having.
However, I did install 2840149, the supposedly fixed update, and it
crashed my system. I uninstalled it to recover, so whatever they were
trying to do, will just go unprotected or whatever on my system.

2840149 never gave me problems, but then again, 2823324 didn't either.
But I always create an image of my C: drive /before/ installing Windows
Updates. In this case, I didn't need it.

--
s|b

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:49:58 +0200, "s|b" wrote:

2840149 never gave me problems, but then again, 2823324 didn't either.

Same here, I did del 2823324 too. (just on my notebook}

--
-gufus
Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or
allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed

chicagofan wrote:
s|b wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:04:00 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Presumably there is some technical reason preventing them from just
releasing a later update that does the uninstall (plus fixing whatever
the original was supposed to do anyway)?
I suppose so. At first, I was under the impression that a second update
would uninstall 2823324, but I was wrong. Apparently, users have to
uninstall manually...


I never installed 2823324 because of the problems people were having.
However, I did install 2840149, the supposedly fixed update, and it
crashed my system. I uninstalled it to recover, so whatever they were
trying to do, will just go unprotected or whatever on my system.
bj

When is the last time you did a full scan of your system for
malware, or for a rootkit ?

The last time someone had your symptoms, the actual cause
of the crash, was the presence of a rootkit.

And if you try the update again, and this time it works,
that can be because the author of the malware, pushed out
a patch to prevent the crash. There should only be a
window of a couple of days, before the malware designers
have "fixed things on their end".

Paul