check for updates fails

[Gopakumar Sheppillayar]

the update fails with the error code 0x8024402c

occationally it succeeds (displaying a status mesg that there are no updates
available) but still the warning doesn't disappear.

the defender is running on a XP SP2 IBM centrino notebook
any fix or workarount?
--Gopa

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Are you running on a managed network where updates are centrally controlled?

Have you visited Windows Update to see if signature updates are offered?

 

[Gopakumar Sheppillayar]

yes, it is centrally controlled. but individual updates are also allowed.
BTW, i'm doing the update from the defender main screen (click on check for
updates button) . when i don't see the error, it displays that there are no
updates available. even then, the status screen says the definitions are 27
days old.
-gopa

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Windows Defender's native update capability is routed via AutoUpdate. It is
expected to get signature updates via WSUS--such updates are available on
that platform via a new class provded since mid-January--which needs to be
enabled by the administrator.

If your updates are provided via SUS, the automatic update is looking there
for the signature updates, and not finding them.

Individual updating via Windows Update, if that is permitted--should work.
--

 

[Guest]

ok. I have the same issue. my updates are provided via SUS. Individual
updating via Windows Update is NOT permitted. What else will work? (I use
to use Beta 1 = AntiSpyware, and never had any issues......why this now.
WHY??) Unless you want me un-install and use your competitor's product.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

So that updates will be more efficiently and invisibly handled, I think. As
I've said in other messages--Microsoft doesn't want to step on the toes of
the folks administering your network and deciding what apps they want
running on it.

I haven't seen a recipe for manual updating yet--it's clear that the
definitions are at some point in a .msi file which resides in the \program
files\windows defender folder--I haven't seen anyone try a process of
running an msiexec /x remove of one version and then substituting a new
version from an outside source and running it to install.

We should be about due for new signatures, in the next day or two.

--

 

[Guest]

"So that updates will be more efficiently and invisibly handled, I think. "

But I can not get the update, 'cause we use SUS for it! So how is this more
efficient for me? I have to wait, thus my file definitions will mostly be
out of date. And I can not get the updates anyway!


"As I've said in other messages--Microsoft doesn't want to step on the toes
of
the folks administering your network and deciding what apps they want
running on it."

But I can not get the update for the MS software, 'cause we use SUS for it!
So how is this not stepping on the toes of people administering our network?
They have to now grant me the access so that I can update MS Software. But
all ok, cause they have small toes!!

And this is why I think MS just wants me to use their competitor's product.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Sus has a very limited lifetime ahead:
---
Software Update Services
Microsoft will continue to support Software Update Services (SUS) 1.0 until
December 6, 2006. Microsoft will no longer support SUS 1.0 after this date.

SUS 1.0 will no longer synchronize or provide new updates after December 6,
2006. Additionally, as of August 24, 2005, you can no longer download SUS
from the Microsoft Web site. We recommend that you upgrade to Windows Server
Update Services (WSUS) before December 6, 2006.

 

[Guest]

Bill, thank you for your update. however, my problem, is now and not at the
end of this year or with our nedwork admin.

my issue is that i can not get the latest updates for Windows Defender. The
fact that this is done via SUS (which is supported today by Bill Gates and
his people) and that it will potentially (based on whatever evidence you
have) in the future not be suported by Billy (and that my IT dept need to
upgrate to WSUS) has absolutely nothing to do with my issue.

Am I missing something or are you just trolling?

 

[Bill Sanderson]

At the moment, you are in a situation where use of the application isn't
going to be possible.

This probably isn't a big issue since, of course, you wouldn't be using a
beta application on production equipment. You've time to do the planning
and make decisions that will enable you to be in a supported configuration
(or not) by release.

--

 

[Guest]

ok, so like we can not use the application because a feature were removed.
(the feature were not changed, as it does not operate as before). MS can
probably like do this as its still like a Beta product. Showing true
colours!!!

You are correct, its not a big issue. As spyware, malware, etc. are not big
issues anyway. Running anti spyware software is also not big issue. Wonder
why all the fuzz? Wonder why like MS develops anti spyware applications?

And yes, we do now know what software not to run, after like this responds!

thank you, like very much for your clear answers.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

It is the nature of beta products to change before release. This is one of
many reasons why Microsoft clearly recommends that beta products not be
deployed on production equipment in the enterprise.
--

 

[Guest]

my laptop is hardly "production equipment". All we'll do is just use your
competitor's product. Its no issue at all. Realy, like no issue.