Hmm, I need to test that maybe I wasn't patient enough.  Can anyone else
confirm that if a reboot is needed and more patches still need to be
installed that it will install the next round?  We are using maintenance
windows.  If that is the case, that would be great.

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Mote, Todd
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:43 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [mssms] 2 reboots - MS15-009?

 

No, it was all the same deployment.  If you're using maintenance windows, if
there's enough time left in the window for the next update it should install
and reboot again.  I'd have to go look, but I'm pretty sure that's how it
happened here.

 

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of sccmfun
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [mssms] 2 reboots - MS15-009?

 

So you had to do 2 separate deployments?  

 

SCCM isn't smart enough to install 3012952, reboot, do the scan and then
patch again and install 3034196 right?  If I want both patches to be
installed during the same patch window, I would need to do 2 deployments is
what it sounds like?

 

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Mote, Todd
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [mssms] 2 reboots - MS15-009?

 

Not if 4196 isn't detected unless/until 1952 is installed.  4196 seems to be
dependent on 1952.  That was true here as well.

 

Todd

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of sccmfun
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [mssms] 2 reboots - MS15-009?

 

MS15-009 has 2 KB's with it:

 

.         3021952

.         3034196

 

We have deployed both to Windows 2012 servers, and what happens is SCCM sees
that 3021952 is needed, it patches the machine and reboots.  It then comes
back up does another scan and see that's 3034196 is needed.  Is anyone else
seeing this behavior?  In order to get the machine fully patches, it looks
like I need to deploy the SUG that includes both patches twice.  The 1st
time it kicks off it installs the 1st patch, and I target the SUG again a
2nd time it runs and will install the 2nd patch.  Is that expected behavior?
Shouldn't both patches have been installed at the same time?  

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 



Reply via email to