Re: 823559 update



Robert Aldwinckle
07-09-2005, 11:36 PM
"Jeannie" <Jeannie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00F1BC8F-9B07-46B3-AB85-3AD8A441B4DF@microsoft.com...
>I receive a notice every day about a new download from Microsoft Windows
> Update and each time I download this update it says successfully updated but
> still continue to receive
> this notice daily.The update no 823559. Why is this happening

That is a good question. You should try and find out more about
your symptom before trying to repair what it might be.

Here is the TechNet article about it. Notice that the patch is very old.

<title>MS03-023: Buffer overrun in the HTML converter could allow code execution</title>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823559

So this suggests that as Chris discovered in his case the update
was already applied. The question then is why is it being reoffered?
The answer usually is that one or more of the modules it replaced
have become regressed. So, look in that article at the list of modules
which are involved and the version information associated with your OS:

27-Jun-2003 02:19 2003.1100.5426 311,864 Html32.cnv Windows 98, Windows 98 SE
27-Jun-2003 02:19 2003.1100.5426 116,288 Msconv97.dll Windows 98, Windows 98 SE


Now, find those modules on your system and use their File, Properties
to find out the actual details of your copies of them.

Chances are that the versions that you have are earlier than the above
and it happened somehow independently of WU. Therefore, the update
would be needed because of the versions of the modules but not needed
because it is already applied. Unfortunately, in this case WU does not
try to force the application of the update though it could that do very easily.

If you have an uninstall procedure for 823559 available you should try
using it. That might actually give you *newer* versions of the above
modules (but not as new as the ones listed). However, it wouldn't
really matter because by uninstalling it you would then have created
the condition that the modules indicated that you needed the patch
*and* the patch history indicated that it wasn't applied. Therefore,
it should apply *and* replace the modules properly, thus ending
your problem cycle.


> --
> Thank You for any help given


Good luck

Robert Aldwinckle
---


Re: 823559 update