Replies

Homegroup is a feature of Windows 7 to help those at home and some smaller businesses network two or more computers together without a lot of “geeky” effort. Therefore, Revo Uninstaller probably won’t do you any good to try and uninstall it.

However, you can manage it’s settings by going into the Network and Sharing Center. Just click on the little networking icon in your system tray in the lower right corner of the screen and then click the blue link labeled “Open Network and Sharing Center”.

When I originally got Windows 7 back in 2010, it was installed on a new computer that I bought from a local shop (no brand names on it, it was a locally built unit to my specs), and I had another computer that was running XP at home. Well, once I got to the point of plugging in the networking cable, the Win 7 Pro machine found the XP machine and “automagically” set up networking between them, enabling the XP machine to see everything on the 7 Pro machine and vice versa. I later went into the machines and manually tweaked some networking settings to restrict what each could see on the other. That XP machine has since been replaced by a newer Win 7 machine.

So, it could be that the recent updates you’ve installed have “reawakened” that capability on your Win 7 machine somehow.

However, with no more support for XP in the form of security patches, you’re better off leaving the XP machine alone, isolated from the Win 7 machine.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Morty

Thanks, @MrBrian! You just named the .NET detector I was trying to think of in my earlier post above!

1 user thanked author for this post.

MrBrian

@erik: In her post above (#135105), Kirsty is referring to the “Click to Run” version of Office 2013 when she uses the abbreviation “CTR”.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Erik, woody

In other words folks, if you’re going to the update catalog site to get the updates for .NET please only install updates for the version(s) of .NET that are installed on your computer, AND NO OTHER VERSIONS. So, if you have .NET version 4.6.1 only on your system, then only get and install that version’s update from the catalog site. If you have .NET 3.5.1 and 4.5.2, then go get the updates for those two and install them both from the update catalog site.

There is a utility that can check your computer for you and tell you just which version(s) you have on your system so you can go get the right update(s) from the update catalog site. The utility’s been named on another string here on Ask Woody, I don’t immediately recall which one, though. 

Do any of the MVP’s have any guidance with respect to the name and/or location to get the utility from?

Ok, here we go again! I just had an earlier reply to Noel’s post #134666 swallowed up by the system. My reply was post number 134679. It deals with the clear pixel that PayPal has on this site. It would be nice to get it “resurrected” from the accidental “trash bin” and re posted here where it belongs.

Thanks in advance!

However, since the aforementioned setting only blocks unsecured images in mixed content environments, it shouldn’t block the little 1×1 clear pixel on this site from PayPal, as it comes from a secure (https) site. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Noel Carboni

Nice settings, I tweaked a couple of mine to improve security a bit. However, you may have “missed” one.

Under Security in the Advanced Settings tab, the setting for “Block unsecured images with other mixed content” I have the setting checked, whereas you don’t. I’ve had it checked ever since finding out about web beacons used for tracking you even with the “do not track” beacon on full blast. The unsecured images setting kills a great number of these little 1×1 pixel beacons if you’re not running some sort of ad or tracking blocker add-in to IE or other browsers. Further, if I’m on a secure page using https, then as far as I’m concerned, the whole page should be delivered securely or I’m not using it, PERIOD. That’s why I also have enabled the blocking of mixed content in Firefox as well…what I see should be secure if I’m on an https page or forget it, I’m not using it.

This policy has served me well for a good number of years. Kept a load of junk-ware off my computer, but with the help of other items I also use in a layered approach.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Noel Carboni

ROTFLOL!! Couldn’t have said it better myself! NO browser is perfect, they all are just the one(s) one prefers using!! Outrageously funny that MS gets $7500 paid to them by their immediate competitor in the browser arena!

Now, hopefully, Google will fix the hole MS pointed out in Chrome for the benefit of the regular Chrome users.

I use Spybot along with another app, SpywareBlaster. Both “inoculate” the browsers on your machine in overlapping ways using the hosts file and other measures built into the browsers. SpywareBlaster used to be from Javacool Software, but it’s now put out by Brightfort. the change was made about two years ago, if memory serves.

@Cybertooth:

If you have hidden KB4011086, go back into Windows Update and unhide it. That should force Windows Update to do a new scan for it and any replacements that have superseded it, at which time you should see KB4011110 instead of KB4011086. I haven’t installed any updates yet and just ran Windows Update before posting this and it came back with 4011110 instead of 4011086. As a side note, when I did have 4011086 showing up in the list, it was unchecked meaning that either MS knew something was up with it or wanted it to be installed all by itself.

1 user thanked author for this post.

woody

Breaking something people are accustomed to using or doing is a new feature??? ROTFLOL!! At least until I just read the actual article on Computerworld. I guess some folks at Redmond need to go back to school to learn about a key concept Woody mentions in the article…communication. I agree with him that if this reduced functionality had been mentioned in the FIRST place, (and a workaround provided in the bulletin or other location readily accessible by those affected), the affected users would’ve been better prepared for this turn of events after patching.

3 users thanked author for this post.

SueW, Noel Carboni, Elly

@walker: Your problem in not getting the update from August has a NEW reply just a few minutes ago from @MrBrian at the following link:https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/error-code-80070308-prevents-kb4034664-update-install/#post-133151

Follow the link to see his answer to you, to help you through your problem.

I haven’t seen many posts from @MrBrian the last few days here on any thread, and I figure it was due to his helping Woody out with getting this site upright and fairly fully functional. Same probably goes for the other MVP’s here as well…haven’t seen too many posts from them due to their helping Woody get this site back up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Wow, that’s really similar to what @PKCano experienced after test-installing September’s Win 7 roll up patch…IE11 wouldn’t launch because of his icon font size being too large. I wonder if there’s a vulnerability involving font display that’s patched in the same manner by the Office 2010 patches as well as the Win7 monthly rollup?

Either way, I agree with what he said just above…wait for others to be the guinea pigs which will hopefully allow the rest of us to install with a minimum of (or preferably no) hassles.

I seriously doubt MS is lousing up the monthly patches just to get us to move to Win 10…those with Win10 have been having their own sets of issues with miscreant patches. The problem lies in MS’s lack of quality control with the patches the do release, in that they’re not tested thoroughly enough! I am attributing this to their recent rounds of layoffs they’ve had company-wide…fewer folks trying to handle the same workload resulting in a “just get it out the door” mentality. At least it sure seems like it to me, given the problematic nature of most patches for the last year or so! (Oops, I digressed a little too much!)  

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Hi everyone!

I just tried again with both IE11 and Firefox 55.0.3, and got the same results: The MS Update Catalog site loaded just fine in both browser with both set to refuse all cookies and with DOM storage disabled.

The only “gotcha” is that in order to load in IE11, the site just asked me for permission to install a scripting software add-on that made EMET 5.52 give me an ASLR alert when the page finished loading after the script was installed. Without the script being installed, the page was just a blank blue page with no images of any kind nor any search box of any kind. Same behavior with the x64 version of IE11. This is actually an ActiveX control that is installed and digitally signed by MS to help the catalog site run.

The above behavior leads me to believe that our days of seeing the dreaded error code listed in this thread’s title post may soon be a thing of the past. I do now believe MS is tweaking the site to behave well with most browser configurations including Opera and Chrome. I’ll continue testing my browsers to see if the site is indeed being more tolerant and less “flaky” as, I believe, MrBrian put it.

Anyone who is reading this in Google’s Chrome browser have any comments or have you experienced the error code listed in the title post? If so, we’d love to hear from you and hear if you had to take any steps to avoid the error code!

Not in this case, typing in the link without the “www” brings one to the same site and produces the same results. I just tried it in my copy of Firefox 55.0.3 with, like my post yesterday, DOM storage disabled and cookies set to reject all cookies, even those from MS. Upon going to a page in another discussion about a patch that needs a patch for the dual monitor snafu, the catalog came right up, and plainly stated the results reported by MrBrian, that there is no patch in the catalog for that KB number. I’d add more to this reply, but we’d be getting off topic.