Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
220 replies to this topic

#31 shozilla

shozilla

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 11-January 09

Posted 12 September 2013 - 23:47

I didn't have any problem with mine. 




#32 Aergan

Aergan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 24-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro | Xubuntu | OSX Yosemite| Server 2012 R2 | Ubuntu Server
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1

Posted 12 September 2013 - 23:49

Seen this in a recent XP SP3 VM that was not configured to use WSUS.

 

I installed the certificate revocation optional / recommended update and it seemed to sort itself out in my case.

 

I've seen Animalware service, Windows Security Essentials, McAfee Antivirus etc also cause this issue though during a botched definition update.



#33 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:22

Seen this in a recent XP SP3 VM that was not configured to use WSUS.

 

I installed the certificate revocation optional / recommended update and it seemed to sort itself out in my case.

 

I've seen Animalware service, Windows Security Essentials, McAfee Antivirus etc also cause this issue though during a botched definition update.

 

This one? http://www.microsoft...s.aspx?id=39802



#34 Aergan

Aergan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 24-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro | Xubuntu | OSX Yosemite| Server 2012 R2 | Ubuntu Server
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1

Posted 13 September 2013 - 13:37

Yes, that's the one



#35 flynempire

flynempire

    It's called the bat and yes Mr. Wayne it comes in black :)

  • Joined: 19-January 10
  • Location: Sunny - Miami, FL
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro SP-1, Windows 8.1 (RT) Android 4.1.2 Windows 8.1 Up1
  • Phone: Samsung Exhibit (Latest Model)

Posted 14 September 2013 - 01:01

Well slip streaming is a great way to handle this. I guess the best way to avoid this problem and continue to use XP will be to slipstream all updates after XP SP-3 including the very last ones MS makes up until the cut off date.

After April 2014 no more XP updates except paid hot fixes for companies. So at the point if the slip stream is done right then every fresh install will have SP-3 and all the updates after. There will be no need run Windows or Microsoft update at all and should be disabled.

Just make sure to have as much protection as possible to mitigate attacks. Disable unnecessary services and if possible perform any registry tweaks that are for security purposes, disable file and print sharing if stand alone machine.

Also some programs like Nlite let you remove certain Windows components not needed that could also reduce the attack surface.



#36 jdsmort

jdsmort

    Resident One Post Wonder

  • Joined: 18-September 13

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:49

I have struggled with this problem for a while. However, today, after trying almost every apparent solution suggested in various forums, and having given up and set Updates to OFF, and disabling the update service, I tried once more just to see what happened.

If anyone with this problem...  100% CPU on svchost.exe, (in my case, specifically relating to updates) uses Process Explorer, as I do, they should see the related process, Wuauclt.exe.

Instead of killing the svchost process, I decided to try killing the wuauclt process instead..   Aha....   it did not die, or should I say, it died only to be resurected immediately, and immediately the system started to download updates, with no more high CPU hogging..

I have no idea why this worked, but as nothing else has, I consider this may be a 'fix' of some sort...



#37 flynempire

flynempire

    It's called the bat and yes Mr. Wayne it comes in black :)

  • Joined: 19-January 10
  • Location: Sunny - Miami, FL
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro SP-1, Windows 8.1 (RT) Android 4.1.2 Windows 8.1 Up1
  • Phone: Samsung Exhibit (Latest Model)

Posted 18 September 2013 - 20:27

Hi. Typically Wuauclt.exe. is what I see also. I am telling you this problem goes back years but it was also hit or miss for me because some machines had this behavior and others did not.

I forget though if it had to do with Windows Update or Microsoft Update. There is a difference and I always choose Microsoft Update as it gives you more updates than the standard Windows Update.

In the end like I said once there are no more updates it is best to slip stream them all into a CD with SP-3 and remove unnecessary components and every fresh install will be up to date so to speak :)

Think  Micro XP where Nlite and others can strip out things. Also don't forget to disable Auto Update.



#38 clark@hushmail.com

clark@hushmail.com

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: England, UK

Posted 02 October 2013 - 14:04

http://technet.micro...lletin/ms13-069

For XP/IE8 -> http://www.microsoft...s.aspx?id=40119



#39 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 02 October 2013 - 14:07

Once again It's a recent thing. Which is why I thought I was using bad media at first. When I would do a clean install I would check for updates via windows update and the bar would go across for maybe 10 / 15 seconds and then go to the next step. Wonder my surprise when one day 10 / 15 seconds turned into minutes with 100% usage on every new install.



#40 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 02 October 2013 - 14:07

What do those links have to do with the issue?



#41 DKAngel

DKAngel

    That i cannot own ....I shall destroy

  • Joined: 20-July 03
  • Location: Perth, Australia

Posted 02 October 2013 - 14:24

doesnt just happen on xp, also happens on vista and windows 7 had it happen several times



#42 +dsbig

dsbig

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 09-April 09

Posted 02 October 2013 - 16:42

I had the same problem.

 

end of last I install reinstall xp with service pack 3 in a dualboot system and it refused to even check for update saying could not find the page.

 

had to manually download windows updater and install and it just stayed at scanning for updates.

 

only way I got around it was install xp with service pack 2 and windows update worked. and installed service pack 3 and still worked and fully updated the system.



#43 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 02 October 2013 - 17:01

Could is possibly be something with the Microsoft Update website and/or whatever applet they force people to install before running the update scan?  Or I guess since the WU service phones home, and it might be getting a command to bust ass while doing the update scan.

 

My thought is that if this is something recent, then obviously it isn't a specific update to the core OS since the PCs we're talking about aren't up-to-date.

 

Regardless, this is something Microsoft really needs to fix.  It can't be that difficult and may not even require an software update or anything.



#44 Nicholas Burnell

Nicholas Burnell

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 04-October 13

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:41

Hi to all. This problem is now very common. Absolutly every fix fails on multiple machines.

The only common demominator I can see is that its always lowly single core CPU's

Any fresh XP install, SP3 just immediatly goes 100% on the WU site.

I had success a couple of months ago with a Core2Duo, but since then have had many P4 and 1.6 Celeon boxes that fail.

I know it probably isn't CPU specific, but from an engineering point of view it's like the engine just cannot cope?

MSEssentials also causing this 100cpu in its updates on many PC's I'm seeing (low spec) as well.

Whats going on?



#45 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 7
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:44

Use sysinternals procexp to check which service inside of service host is actually using the CPU, and then use procmon or windbg to figure out why its hogging CPU.

 

+1