Creation Dates Vary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cycloid Torus
  • Start date Start date
C

Cycloid Torus

Odd Thing

Pop-up Update would not install so I got mine directly from website. The
subsequent downloads directly from Microsoft had a file creation date of
12/1/2005 and time based on machine clock at time of download as you would
expect. Size was exactly the same.

The creation dates for the file automatically downloaded via pop-up were
back in July AND WERE DIFFERENT from each other!!

Friday, July 22, 2005, 4:38:56 PM
and
Wednesday, July 20, 2005, 10:42:20 AM

I would like to know if this is common and if it is "ok". Can you check your
Microsoft Antispyware folder for the TempUpdates folder (if it didn't
vaporize after doing its job - mine crashed so it was still there) and let
me know what you found?
 
There were several builds in quick succession back around the time 615 was
released. I'm not sure I remember all the details, but there were at least
two, and possibly three--613, 614, and 615.

I know I just upgraded a .614 machine to .701 quite recently. That one had
a real bug with the update process--it had never gotten any updates, as I
recall.

So it is possible that you are seeing two different files, and the two
different dates are legit.
 
The time and date stamp doesn't refer to the creation date of the definition
files, but instead to the time and date they were downloaded.

Alan
 
Absolutely true for the MicrosoftAntiSpywareInstall.exe files which I
obtained from Microsoft download directly. However, the
MicrosoftAntiSpywareInstall.exe files delivered by the automatic update (the
"Pop-Up" process) which failed for some strange reason on a couple of my
machines carried creation dates back in JULY (though they were very
definitely downloaded on December 1).

I would expect them to be dated for the download date, but they were not.
Else I would expect them to carry the SAME date, but they did not.

With helpful guidance from Bill, I moved copies (renamed in DOS 8.3 format)
and ran file compare ("fc") from command prompt. The files, though they had
different creation dates were the same- so some quirk has caused the Pop-up
process download to have spurious creation dates, but this did not blitz the
files.

Could this be why both machines went into 100% CPU fugue when they tried to
finish the install? Could the program (or AV or other security process) have
identified the "oddity" and prevented process from completing? Or is there
some kind of flaw/incompatibilty between the Pop-Up process and my machines
(legit 100% updated WinXP home on AMD CPUs)?

The other thing I do not understand was the belligerent Pop-Up process. I
told it "NO" on the second machine (because I was in the middle of
investigating the failure on the first machine) - and it bulled right past
my specific command and tried to install anyway. Very bad manners.

If the Pop-Up process uses ActiveX or Java, it is out of luck on my
machines, unless everything is located at a URL at "*.microsoft.com". I'm
running both Internet and Intranet at "HIGH" security and Outlook Express in
text mode until somebody fixes some more of these flaws in IE6, etc.

If a smart MSFT person wants to forward a suggestion, I think these update
processes must come with a clear description of the system requirements (if
ActiveX, if Java, etc) and a listing of the URLs. Else they fail - and fail
on systems of folks who are astute enough to be taking MSFT's advice about
security. That's why I dumped McAfee v8- could not get it to update unless I
dropped security to Medium for the entire Internet - they could not tell me
what the URLs were - they didn't know.
 
Back
Top