NOD32 prevents Microsoft Office Security Patches

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by MiNa, Sep 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MiNa

    MiNa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4
    The following Microsoft Office patches were not loaded: KB921566 and KB918419. Error access to .*TMP file in installer directory. After uninstalling NOD32 (latest version from home page) the security patches loaded fine.

    It took me 2 days,:D 8 hrs each to find this out.

    What could be the reason?

    Best regards
    Michael
     
  2. Gizmo

    Gizmo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Posts:
    34
    Hi, thank you for that information Michael.

    I have tested KB918419 on 3 computers yet .(I plan. to update many)
    On 2 of them the update went OK with fully enabled NOD 2.51.26 few weeks ago.
    I had problem's to update with Security Update for Excel 2003 (KB918419)
    and NOD 2.51.20 on one computer.
    Now I have tried to disable AMON, DMON, IMON, EMON and run update .
    It went OK. Now it is updated.

    Thanks.
     
  3. cthorpe

    cthorpe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Posts:
    168
    Location:
    Texas
    I have had the exact same problem, and have posted here about it. I also had to disable NOD to install some of the Office updates.
     
  4. sir_carew

    sir_carew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Posts:
    884
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    Same problem here.
    No Office update is installed until I disable AMON.
    I think it's caused on low PCs. Maybe and I repeat, maybe on low PCs, setup files are being scanned by AMON and thus locked and setup can't access this. As these PCs are slow, AMON take longer and setup isn't able to process files.
    What are your technical specifications?

    My PC: AMD Duron 1,1, 376 RAM, XP SP2 and Office 2003 SP2.
     
  5. MiNa

    MiNa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4
    Yes, you were right, it is a 500 MHz Pentium 3 PC (ASUS PB3-F). I bought NOD32 because of the small footprint resourcewise. Apparently the NOD32 advertisement is slightly misrepresenting the product in this respect. It needs a more powerfull PC.

    Best regards
    Michael
     
  6. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    The advertisement is really fine . The problem comes from another place . You just need an Operating system that best matches your processor speed and RAM amount .

    Although I don't know what your Windows is ,you should not have XP with 500 Mhz because the 21 century user needs faster processor and more RAM for XP .

    If you don't intent to improve your hardware , downgrade to more appropriate operating system such as Windows 2000 Professional which will run great on your pc . I have a laptop with 700 Mhz processor and 256 RAM with XP Service Pack 1a installed , all critical Windows patches installed . NOD32 is also installed on it and it runs perfectly fine as well as everything else .

    :)
    Well , about the MS Office patches , you may contact ESET for that but I do know Microsoft had problems with the latest Office patches and a lot of users couldn't install them , including me . I take part in MS newsgroups and that's how I know that.

    Regards! :thumb:
     
  7. MiNa

    MiNa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4
    I run Windows 2000 SP4 and have 384 MB memory.

    Best regards
    Michael
     
  8. MiNa

    MiNa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4
    I think the situation is now clear. I need a faster PC.

    Thanks to everybody who contributed in the discussion.

    best regards
    Michael
     
  9. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Oh , I am really sorry !


    I thought you have XP but you should be OK with Windows 2000 , 500 Mhz processor and 384 mb RAM :D Excuse me , once again ! :thumb:
     
  10. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    A faster PC may not make the difference in all cases.
    I've seen for example the Office update choke on a brand new PC, but then the very first retry with nothing different or changed at all it worked perfectly.

    Cheers :)
     
  11. Gizmo

    Gizmo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Posts:
    34
    I had a problem on 1.7 GHz Intel Celeron , 480 MB RAM, 40 GB system disk and updated XP SP2.
     
  12. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    This statement is simply wrong as I have no problems with my 500mhz machine.
     
  13. RickS

    RickS Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    400 MHz, 256 MB here. No problems with XP or NOD32.
     
  14. rnfolsom

    rnfolsom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Posts:
    247
    Location:
    Monterey, California
    Michael:

    I run Windows 2000 Sp4 Rollup1 very satisfactorily on a 1ghz Pentium III laptop (I do realize that's faster than your PC), with 500mb RAM and a 10gb active partition C:\.

    Win2k uses significantly less resources (RAM and hard drive space) than XP does --- that's why I am still running Win2k, and don't expect to ever run XP or Vista unless I find a definite and specific need to do so.

    But with Win2k (and maybe even with XP), before going to the cost and especially the trouble of setting up a new and faster computer that you may not need, I strongly recommend that you first try simply installing more RAM [and perhaps a larger hard drive, depending on how much free space your current active partition, e.g. C:\, has], because more RAM is a cheap experiment.

    To a substantial extent, my experience is that more RAM can be a substitute for a faster processor, and that a fast processor with inadequate RAM is wasted money.

    Cordially, R.N. (Roger) Folsom

    P.S.: I had trouble with two or three Office 2000 and/or Viewer 2003 updates in either June or July; unfortunately, I don't remember which ones caused trouble. But in any case, I downloaded the actual files and installed them manually. The next month, Office Update ran and installed that next month's updates with no problem.

    For the July and August "update Tuesdays," however, Office Update has wanted to install not only the updates I mention in my preceding paragraph, but also Security Update for Office 2003 (KB921566), even though Office 2003 has never been installed on either of my family's two Win2k computers (although the Viewers 2003 for Word, PowerPoint, and Excel are installed), and even though document kb921566 and all of the other documents to which it links say specirfically that one of the requirements for this update is that Office 2003 (no mention of the Viewers) be installed.

    I've asked MS about this by email, but no answer.

    So I think that MS is being sloppy with the Office Update site. After all, Microsoft wants us all to switch out of Windows Update and Office Update to Microsoft Update (which I think I can't do, because I don't think it covers Office 2000).
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2006
  15. agoretsky

    agoretsky Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,032
    Location:
    California
    Hello,

    I have noticed that some software installations fail in an environment where there are a large amount of files in the temporary file and temporary Internet file folders.

    The next time you need to install updates for Microsoft Office, can you try clearing your temporary file and temporary Internet file folders, restarting the computer, and then installing the updates.

    Please let us know if this makes any difference.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky
     
  16. cthorpe

    cthorpe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Posts:
    168
    Location:
    Texas
    I have had quite a bit of trouble installing Office 2003 updates in the past with AMON running. I use FDISR, and I have made multiple snapshots and tested the installation time and again with the same results: AMON running, we get a failure. AMON disabled, sucess. I believe the last culprit was the recent Excel patch that came out a in July. This has been duplicated on a fresh install of XP SP2 and Office 2003 with nothing but NOD, Office, and FDISR installed. It really seems that NOD is taking too long to scan the files and the update fails.

    My system specs:
    866mhz PIII on an ASUS CUSL-2c
    512 MB ram
    GeForce II MX (8.4.2.1)
    Western Digital WDC WD2500JB (60gb partitioned as C: for Windows, Programs, and FDISR snapshots
    Western Digital WDC WD1600JB
    Seagate ST3160023A

    As I said above, I have duplicated the problem with a clean install with no other security apps running. I have duplicated the problem with all services as installed by default, and with services cut down as per BlackViper. I have had problems with the Windows Update site, Microsoft update site, and with the full downloadable patches.
    C
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.