XP Windows / Automatic Updates SVCHOST.exe 100% CPU .. MS did something.


Recommended Posts

I've done thousands of XP installs with my media, always an easy updates scenario untill a few months ago.

Best slipstream some updates again.

Microsoft: You really are beginning to deserve to fail.

I only hope I dont have to do a Server or SBS 2003 from scratch ever again, my bet is it will be the same fault.

 

 Quick reply to the 8.1 comment. Normal people, old people, infirm people et all have all been tought to, "Drive" Windows in a certain (desktop) way.

 If you move the controls in their cars they would stop buying the car until someone put them back where they belong.

 (off subject, sorry)

Hey guys

been following this thread..have any of you who have been experienced this problem tried this out..Microsoft apparently released a patch several years ago for this very issue

http://www.windows-help-central.com/svchost-exe-100-percent.html

Sorry, but that's just a "stick my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exists" approach to safety.

 

What happens when the next Blaster or Nachi comes along that makes use of a vulnerability in Windows to infect your machine without user intervention.  The Windows firewall is not infallible you know, especially the antiquated one in XP. I've seen malware able to disable it in the past. It can take AV vendors several days, if not weeks to push out definition updates for new viruses as quite often it depends on sample submissions.

After all those years it's extremely unlikely to see another remote vulnerability, even more one that bypasses the firewall, and almost impossible one that also bypasses the router that most people use. I've seen machines never updated after SP2, and that's almost from 9 years ago, having no issues at all. If you're fearful of the worst case scenario after SP2 you can close all the ports, inclusing those reserved by all the microsoft network client and file and printer sharing without even having to bother with editing registry entries (both Server and Workstation services are uninstallable). That said, choosing between a completely unusable machine and a machine perfectly usable but slightly less insecure the answer is pretty easy, if security was really that important you shouldn't even use a computer to start with. I'd be far more afraid to browse the web with an outdated java, flash or adobe reader plugin.

After all those years it's extremely unlikely to see another remote vulnerability, even more one that bypasses the firewall, and almost impossible one that also bypasses the router that most people use. I've seen machines never updated after SP2, and that's almost from 9 years ago, having no issues at all. If you're fearful of the worst case scenario after SP2 you can close all the ports, inclusing those reserved by all the microsoft network client and file and printer sharing without even having to bother with editing registry entries (both Server and Workstation services are uninstallable). That said, choosing between a completely unusable machine and a machine perfectly usable but slightly less insecure the answer is pretty easy, if security was really that important you shouldn't even use a computer to start with. I'd be far more afraid to browse the web with an outdated java, flash or adobe reader plugin.

 

dude, after April 8 in 2014 every exploit discovered that affects Windows XP won't be patched because there won't be a patch to begin with, so a experienced hacker can read the MS Bulletin, download the patch for other OS and by understanding what that patch does it can exploit the fault in Windows XP, by making malware that targets that fault, knowing that it won't be fixed. And considering the amount of users and organizations that use Windows XP, this is bad.

 

I remember the days of massing attacks by using worms and exploits that targeted Windows 2000; while most of the people migrated from 2000 to XP along th years and those attacks vectors were reduced, it took a while and in that same time, many attacks were sucessful.

this use to be a bug in windows XP that MS fixed years ago when you were in pre SP2 or SP3 I can't remember it's been a while... but windows update would go nuts with the whole update service and run at 100% for a long time

dude, after April 8 in 2014 every exploit discovered that affects Windows XP won't be patched because there won't be a patch to begin with, so a experienced hacker can read the MS Bulletin, download the patch for other OS and by understanding what that patch does it can exploit the fault in Windows XP, by making malware that targets that fault, knowing that it won't be fixed. And considering the amount of users and organizations that use Windows XP, this is bad.

 

I remember the days of massing attacks by using worms and exploits that targeted Windows 2000; while most of the people migrated from 2000 to XP along th years and those attacks vectors were reduced, it took a while and in that same time, many attacks were sucessful.

You should read the whole chain of posts before answering. I already wrote that within 1 year XP won't be supported anymore. My point was that if you use a third party browser and keep adobe flash and reader updated the attack surface would still stay very low. Do you think that antivirus makers don't bother detecting the exploit codes as well?

Hey guys

been following this thread..have any of you who have been experienced this problem tried this out..Microsoft apparently released a patch several years ago for this very issue

http://www.windows-help-central.com/svchost-exe-100-percent.html

Yes, this is not a new issue as many would think. I have noticed this on many machines when working with one of the MS partners, who were testing WGA. 

You can try using the offline updater, http://download.wsusoffline.net/

It updates the Windows Update files by default before installing any more updates. Make sure to update root certificates as well.

Hey guys

been following this thread..have any of you who have been experienced this problem tried this out..Microsoft apparently released a patch several years ago for this very issue

http://www.windows-help-central.com/svchost-exe-100-percent.html

 
Supported Operating System
Windows XP Service Pack 2

Isn't that already integrated in SP3?

Iv'e had this issue on an old PC at church that was never online. Installed internet access the PC updated to SP3 and all the updates.

But still every day it would do this 100% thing, until I turned off auto updates.

Tried every thing  I could find to fix it finally gave up, as soon as we can get some donations for a new system bye bye XP.

Back from todays rounds, one of which was a lady in her 80's with a P4 Dell. "Running really slow" This is an eight year old install, guess what, 100% cpu cause by WU?

This, I'm sure now is not an old issue, or the same as an old issue, MS have done something. My previous post experiment with clean builds and now another in the field.

Proof enough for me.

Perhaps done on purpose to have people move up to newer OS? I dont believe much in conspiracy but I would not put it past them.

Perhaps done on purpose to have people move up to newer OS? I dont believe much in conspiracy but I would not put it past them.

 

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

  • Like 2

This happens iwith XP mode too. I was trying to install / update it, to make an up to date XP ISO.

 

I noticed svchost.exe was 100% constantly. I couldnt update it, without it freezing. The only thing that was installed was XP mode / with XP3.

 

Tried WSUS offline. it was fine but didnt update everything. Well, I couldnt figure out how to make it update everything. Even tho, I downloaded all the updates with it. And created an ISO with it

 

Altho, I dont know what happened after I installed XP mode. Not only would it not update, but later I found out that the BITS and Auto update services were borked (one / or both were corrupt somehow, or some files didnt register properly / files were missing). In the end, I gave up trying. It just took too long for it to do anything

Hi to all  :)

 

I found a solution !!!

 

1. Install fresh copy of Windows xp sp3

2. Install Internet Explorer 8  (without updates !!!)

3. Install this update kb2870699

 

 

 

And you are done :) No more 100% usage of svchost.exe


 
  • Like 2

Okay so i'm just testing this now.

Made a new VM in ESXi, Installed a fresh copy of XP SP3 with no changes, updates, settings or anything.

 

Changed WU to "notify only", and waited with Task Manager open.

After about 3 minutes of brief spurts ranging from 0 to 25% activity on svchost.exe I noticed that wmiadap.exe got called and after that, svchost.exe locked on 99% CPU use. (The wmiadap.exe process closed soon after - Post edit : Seems this wasn't related as it's not being called now)

 

Going to try perguife then Lasoto's suggestions shortly.

 

 

Update 1 : perguife's suggestion failed to work, CPU locked at 99%. Trying Lasoto's suggestion next.

 

Update 2 : And Lasoto's suggestion hasn't worked either. CPU just locked at 99% again.

 

Update 3 : I took fatbeerguy's suggestion of first using procexp to find what service was causing trouble - no surprises it was svchost.exe backing wuauclt.exe, so then I used procmon to monitor system activity. And... the process logs showed very little (if any) change whether svchost was maxed or idle!

 

Any more ideas?

Edited by Raa
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "Of course the easiest solution is to switch to uBlock Origin Lite if you want to remain on Chrome, as it is MV3-based, but from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version" In my experience uBlock Origin Lite does the job for normal everday home users. When they kill that we get to watch Firefox and Brave get a boost in user market share.
    • Block by DNS ad blocker! I dare you! I will even layer unlock Origin, on top of my internal DNS, if I need to and I don’t even block ads today (I really should but this type of behavior makes me angry). I suppose I could also just be lazy, and add the flags myself, back to each release (it wouldn’t be that difficult).
    • Wonder what MPs have ties to these privacy/verification/data harvesting companies that are going to step in this time. Last time under the Tories half the cabinet had fingers in the pies, heck even the PM and his wife at the time was working for silicon valley, probably made a fortune.
    • Google Chrome is killing all uBlock Origin bypasses, Microsoft Edge, Opera to follow by Sayan Sen For a while now the transition away from Manifest V2 (MV2) to MV3 has been on-going and it looks like it is entering its final phase of deprecation, at least, in the case of Google Chrome. A recent discussion thread in the w3c WebExtensions Community Group GitHub repo has highlighted how the latest and upcoming versions of the most popular browser are expected to be its final releases with support for MV2 extensions. Chromium contributor Andrey Bershanskiy shared details about recent Chromium changes and according to comments from Google engineer Devlin Cronin, Chrome has now started removing the flags that previously controlled MV2 availability. kExtensionManifestV2Disabled, the Chromium feature flag that allowed controlled disabling of MV2 add-ons, is now completely removed, which means you will likely no longer find uBlock Origin in your browser extensions list. He wrote: "The kExtensionManifestV2Disabled feature has been default-enabled for over a year. Remove the feature and the effectively-dead code. ... Any tests that relied on being in the "warning" phase (i.e., with the kExtensionManifestV2Disabled) for their sole behavior testing are removed, since this stage is no longer reachable." Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns. He wrote: "MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire. Unfortunately, we won't be putting code behind a compilation flag ... We won't be removing all the MV2 code wholesale right away, so many of these things will continue working for awhile (but they will go away eventually, and some may go away sooner than others)." What this essentially means is that the tricks and bypasses that were used to keep MV2 extensions like uBlock Origin and others alive will not work any more on Chrome, or at least not for very long. For example the Windows Registry mod that could extend MV2 availability will cease to function after Chromium version 151. Here is a rundown of the changes coming in the final such releases of Chromium releases: Chromium 150 lost ExtensionManifestV2Disabled option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Availability option Chromium 151 will likely loose AllowLegacyMV2Extensions option Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Microsoft Edge could soon follow suit too. Although it is not specified, Edge began disabling uBlock Origin back in February, and Opera could also stop the functioning of MV2 add-ons, even though it had committed to support MV2 for longer in October 2024. uBlock Origin developer Raymond Hill (gorhill) apparently stated the following: "For Opera I did submit 1.70.0 rather late, but this was weeks ago. A while ago I received an email from Opera that they plan to abandon MV2-based extension so maybe they are no longer allocating resources for reviewing such extensions." The email which developers like Gorhill mentions was received from Opera last year. Here is what it seemingly said: Hence for now the only Chromium browser that seems to be on-board fully with MV2 support is Brave, and perhaps Vivaldi as well. Meanwhile if you want to ditch Chromium browsers entirely then Mozilla Firefox is an excellent alternative as MV3 and MV2 are both supported. Of course the easiest solution is to switch to uBlock Origin Lite if you want to remain on Chrome, as it is MV3-based, but from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version. Source: w3C (GitHub repo) As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!
    • Write to your MP 😄 Like believing in Santa. Total surveillance IS the goal. Wake up.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      mobmobiles earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      510
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      219
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      92
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      90
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      82
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!