(imported topic written by SystemAdmin)
We are currently going through a remediation of the old patches and this patch seems to have been rereleased on Feb 27, 2008 to version 2.1 and the current one in TEM was updated June 12, 2007 to version 2.0.
Specifically I am working with fixlet # 701220, MS07-012: Vulnerability in Microsoft MFC Could Allow Remote Code Execution - Windows XP/2003 (x64) (v2, re-released 6/12/2007)
Thanks
Martin Carnegie
Gulf Breeze Software Partners
(imported comment written by SystemAdmin)
I am attaching a snapshot of what we see when we try to manually install this patch on the server.
I think what is happening is that the patch is trying to install older versions of the file than the ones that are already installed.
The updated patch installs the following versions of the files that there was an error on.
mfc40u.dll 4.1.0.6141
mfc42u.dll 6.6.8063.0
But the system has:
mfc40u.dll 4.1.0.6151
mfc42u.dll 6.6.8064.0
So it looks like a relevance update needs to be done to check these file versions.
Martin Carnegie
Gulf Breeze Software Partners
(imported comment written by cstoneba)
just last week, we found that these steps worked to get ms17-012 installed:
Download from MS KB2387149 and run it on the affected server. No reboot is needed after it is applied
Download from MS KB2506212 and run it on the affected server. No reboot is needed after it is applied
Download from MS KB924667 and run it on the affected server. A reboot is needed after it is applied (this is the package that TEM is attempting to apply)
Reboot server, then check TEM console to verify it doesn’t see it as relevant any longer
(imported comment written by liuhoting)
cstoneba, I think I’m confused. You guys had to install KB2387149 (MS10-074) and KB2506212 (MS11-024) before KB924667 would run?
(imported comment written by cstoneba)
that’s correct. I think what we did was run MS07-012 manually on the failing endpoint, and a popup message said that there was an issue with these 2 other KBs. so we reinstalled those 2 other KBs, then reinstalled ms07-012, and it worked.
(imported comment written by liuhoting)
Hmmm I’m going to try to replicate that on the test environments we have here. Anything nonstandard with those machines? Was there a lot of stuff installed on the boxes before MS07-012 was applied?
(imported comment written by liuhoting)
Martin Carnegie / cstoneba, is there a chance you could open a bug on this issue? I’d like to follow it up and track it but not muck up the forums in the process. Once I come up with some sort of resolution I’ll post back.