How are others doing this? Messes with compliance since its in the Feb sug I'm deploying. Machine comes back as compliant if u look at enforcement state for deployment then realizes it needs 3034196 and turns to not compliant. It also takes a bit to realize it needs it since it use the cached scan that doesn't know it needs 3034196.
--- Original Message --- From: "Todd Hemsell" <[email protected]> Sent: February 17, 2015 9:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] 2 reboots - MS15-009? thanks for the information. very helpful. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, sccmfun <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] <[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 > > > > > >
