11 Replies Latest reply on Dec 4, 2017 9:19 AM by ddenning

    Shockwave supersedence

    Jose@IU Rookie

      Hello,

       

      Last week, an update for Shockwave was added: version 12.3.1.201.

       

      My questions are:

       

      1. Why wasn't version 12.2.9.199 tagged as "Is Superseded" = "Yes"?
      2. If I right click 12.3.1.201 and "Edit" > Superseded Updates > add "12.2.9.199" to the list of "Software updates that are superseded by this update"; will the next catalog sync revert such change? Is this practice even recommended?
      3. I am noticing the same behavior with Java v151 and v152. Is it because these updates are not "cumulative" and they should be installed separately? otherwise, please elaborate.

       

      If there are KB's or this has been discussed in a different discussion in this community, please feel free to reply with the link to it.

       

      Screenshot from "Published Third-Party Updates" in the SCCM console:

      2017-11-20 13_47_35-Remote Desktop Manager (Work Resources).png

       

      Screenshot from deployment status in SCCM console:

       

      2017-11-20 13_46_09-Remote Desktop Manager (Work Resources).png

       

       

      Sincerely,

      Jose

        • 1. Re: Shockwave supersedence
          ddenning SupportEmployee

          Hi Jose,

           

          Thank you for posting your questions.

           

          1) It looks like 12.2.9.199.EXE is now showing as superseded.

           

           

          2) I checked and Java v151 and v152 appear to address different vulnerabilies. Ususually when an update is superseded it is because another update addresses the same vulnerabilities as the superseded update.

           

          Thanks!

           

          David

          1 of 2 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Shockwave supersedence
            Jose@IU Rookie

            1) What about 12.2.9.199 MSI? And why are there 2 separate patches (MSI and EXE) for the same version?

             

            2) That is very helpful. I will keep that in mind for future reference.

             

             

            -Jose

            • 3. Re: Shockwave supersedence
              rgsteele Apprentice

              ddenning wrote:

               

              2) I checked and Java v151 and v152 appear to address different vulnerabilies. Ususually when an update is superseded it is because another update addresses the same vulnerabilities as the superseded update.

              This isn't quite right. Quoting from the Java SE Downloads Page:

              Java SE 8u151 includes important bug fixes. Oracle strongly recommends that all Java SE 8 users upgrade to this release. Java SE 8u152 is a patch-set update, including all of 8u151 plus additional features (described in the release notes).

              So you only need to approve 8u151 unless you need the features added in 8u152.

               

              I don't really understand why these two updates aren't in two separate product classifications (e.g. "JRE" and "JRE Patch Set Update") since if you were using scheduled downloads with an ADR there would be no way to prevent the PSU from being deployed, which would override the non-PSU update. I suppose I should submit a product enhancement request for this, huh?

              1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                rgsteele Apprentice

                Jose@IU wrote:

                 

                And why are there 2 separate patches (MSI and EXE) for the same version?

                The applicable update depends on whether Shockwave was initially installed using the MSI or the EXE installer.

                1 of 1 people found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                  Jose@IU Rookie

                  2 questions remain:

                   

                  1. Why wasn't the patch 12.2.9.199 MSI tagged as "Is Superseded" = "Yes"?
                  2. If I right click 12.3.1.201 and "Edit" > Superseded Updates > add "12.2.9.199" to the list of "Software updates that are superseded by this update"; will the next catalog sync revert such change? Is this practice even recommended?

                   

                  -Jose

                  • 6. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                    ddenning SupportEmployee

                    Hi all,

                     

                    Regarding the question with the Java updates:

                     

                    Java8-152 does not superseded Java8-151. They each address different items - Java8-151 is a security only update and Java8-152 is a patch-set update.

                     

                    All updates in Patch for SCCM are listed Security Updates.The two are separated by superseded rules between the security only and patch-set update. If you are wanting to only publish the security updates and not the patch-set update then you can use the Severity level to differentiate between the two, as the security only updates are listed as Critical while the patch-set updates are listed as Low or Unspecified.

                     

                     

                    I am checking on the Shockwave inquiry now and will update the post when I know more about it.

                     

                    Thanks!

                     

                    David

                    1 of 1 people found this helpful
                    • 7. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                      cnvsccm Rookie

                      I'd like to know about the 12.2.9.199 MSI supersedence as well.

                       

                      Thanks,

                      Andrew

                      • 8. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                        ddenning SupportEmployee

                        Hi All,

                         

                        We found that it looks like an issue with the catalog listing for some of the Shockwave MSI installers. I have escalated a case on this and our content team is currently reviewing it and I will let you know when there is an update. Most likely this will take some time to narrow down. Thank you for your patience.

                         

                        Thanks!

                         

                        David

                        • 9. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                          ddenning SupportEmployee

                          Hi All,

                           

                          We have an answer on why the MSI supersedence is incorrect for Shockwave:

                           

                          This is a known defect caused by the fact that Ivanti Patch for Windows does not support the .MSI and so Patch for SCCM cannot inherit the supersedence chain. This will be resolved in Ivanti Patch for SCCM 2.4.

                           

                          Thanks!

                           

                          David

                          2 of 2 people found this helpful
                          • 10. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                            Jose@IU Rookie

                            Thank you. Good to know.

                             

                            ETA on 2.4 release?

                            • 11. Re: Shockwave supersedence
                              ddenning SupportEmployee

                              Hi Jose,

                               

                              I am glad to help. I do not have an ETA yet, but am told it should be out late Q1 or in Q2 next year. That is a rough estimate. We will be sure to announce it when the new update is out.

                               

                              Thanks!

                               

                              David

                              1 of 1 people found this helpful