WindowsUpdate_8024402F WindowsUpdate_dt000

I am getting error WindowsUpdate_8024402F WindowsUpdate_dt000. I looked at
the logs but I am not running a proxy and have looked at the FAQs they did
not resolve the issues I don't have this issue with Ultimate but I do have
the problem with Business. Log below. Any help would be great.


007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.windowsupdate.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.windowsupdate.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:07:671 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.windowsupdate.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:30:921 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.windowsupdate.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:09:54:203 872 548 Misc WARNING: DownloadFileInternal failed
for
http://download.windowsupdate.com/vi...tawuredir.cab:
error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.microsoft.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>.
error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:10:38:918 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr = 80072efd.
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest failed with hr =
80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used : <(null)> Auth Schemes
used : <>
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestUsingProxy failed for
<http://download.microsoft.com/vista/windowsupdate/redir/vistawuredir.cab>.
error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation MakeRequest failed. error 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
SendRequestToServerForFileInformation failed with 0x80072efd
2007-06-19 19:11:27:277 872 548 Misc WARNING: WinHttp:
ShouldFileBeDownloaded failed with 0x80072efd

Chockla <Chockla@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I am getting error WindowsUpdate_8024402F WindowsUpdate_dt000.
> I looked at the logs but I am not running a proxy and have looked at
> the FAQs they did not resolve the issues I don't have this issue with
> Ultimate but I do have the problem with Business. Log below.
>
> 007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr =
> 80072efd. 2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest
> failed with hr = 80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used
> : <(null)> Auth Schemes used : <>

Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could interfere
with the correct operation of Windows Update?

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
rdhw@cam.ac.uk

Hi Robin,

I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and posters
asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm wondering about the
point of the question.

If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software for the
last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until now, are you
trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or firewall software has
become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling that something has changed (for
the worse) in the Windows Update Web page process?

Alan


"Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Chockla <Chockla@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> I am getting error WindowsUpdate_8024402F WindowsUpdate_dt000.
>> I looked at the logs but I am not running a proxy and have looked at
>> the FAQs they did not resolve the issues I don't have this issue with
>> Ultimate but I do have the problem with Business. Log below.
>>
>> 007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: Send failed with hr =
>> 80072efd. 2007-06-19 19:08:44:421 872 548 Misc WARNING: SendRequest
>> failed with hr = 80072efd. Proxy List used: <(null)> Bypass List used
>> : <(null)> Auth Schemes used : <>
>
> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
>
> --
> Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
> rdhw@cam.ac.uk
>

Alan <somewhere@nospam.not> wrote:

> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
>> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
>
> I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and
> posters asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm
> wondering about the point of the question.
>
> If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software
> for the last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until
> now, are you trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or
> firewall software has become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling
> that something has changed (for the worse) in the Windows Update Web
> page process?

There is a fundamental incompatability between the aims of anti-virus and
anti-spyware applications (which are intended to prevent changes to your
operating system) and Windows Update (which is intended to change your
operating system). There are plenty of reported examples where:

- an anti-virus/anti-spyware application has caused a Windows Update to
fail, which succeeds when the anti-virus application is disabled;
- an anti-virus/anti-spyware application interferes with a Windows Update
which appears to succeed, but leaves the operating system damaged and
unusable in some way;
- an anti-virus application causes corruption to the system's internal
databases which keep records of applied updates, rendering the system unable
to apply any further updates.

The way a user can defend themselves against these possibilities is to
ensure that any anti-virus/anti-spyware applications are disabled when
applying Windows Updates.

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
rdhw@cam.ac.uk

Yes, Robin, I do understand that concept.

However, there appears to be something that has recently happened either to
the anti-virus, firewall and anti-malware applications that users have had
installed for a long period of time.

OR something has gone very wrong in the Windows Update process.

Given that Microsoft has released various "fixes" in the last month or so to
the update process because of LOT of people having problems that they never
before had, I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame the situation on the
basic incompatibility scenario.

Alan

"Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:O9b6fC5sHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Alan <somewhere@nospam.not> wrote:
>
>> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
>>> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
>>
>> I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and
>> posters asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm
>> wondering about the point of the question.
>>
>> If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software
>> for the last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until
>> now, are you trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or
>> firewall software has become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling
>> that something has changed (for the worse) in the Windows Update Web
>> page process?
>
> There is a fundamental incompatability between the aims of anti-virus and
> anti-spyware applications (which are intended to prevent changes to your
> operating system) and Windows Update (which is intended to change your
> operating system). There are plenty of reported examples where:
>
> - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application has caused a Windows Update to
> fail, which succeeds when the anti-virus application is disabled;
> - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application interferes with a Windows Update
> which appears to succeed, but leaves the operating system damaged and
> unusable in some way;
> - an anti-virus application causes corruption to the system's internal
> databases which keep records of applied updates, rendering the system
> unable to apply any further updates.
>
> The way a user can defend themselves against these possibilities is to
> ensure that any anti-virus/anti-spyware applications are disabled when
> applying Windows Updates.
>
> --
> Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
> rdhw@cam.ac.uk
>

The problem is that this was a fresh install of Windows Vista Business. The
only fire wall I have is the one that comes with the OS. I even disabled it
and stoped the services for it and still having an issue. I only have this
problem with Vista Business and no problems on my other computer with Vist
Ultimate. I have this problem on two computers both fresh installs of Vista
Business.

I am not sure what they have diferent in business than in Ultimate, but I
don't have the cash to buy Ultimate for 3 computers. I was running Vista
ultimate and reloading every 30 days on the two that I just put Vista
business that I purchased.
I am not sure what the deal is with the two computers. I can tell you that I
did not have any issues with Ultimate at all that I am having now with
Business.

"Alan" wrote:

> Yes, Robin, I do understand that concept.
>
> However, there appears to be something that has recently happened either to
> the anti-virus, firewall and anti-malware applications that users have had
> installed for a long period of time.
>
> OR something has gone very wrong in the Windows Update process.
>
> Given that Microsoft has released various "fixes" in the last month or so to
> the update process because of LOT of people having problems that they never
> before had, I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame the situation on the
> basic incompatibility scenario.
>
> Alan
>
> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:O9b6fC5sHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Alan <somewhere@nospam.not> wrote:
> >
> >> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
> >>> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
> >>
> >> I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and
> >> posters asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm
> >> wondering about the point of the question.
> >>
> >> If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software
> >> for the last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until
> >> now, are you trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or
> >> firewall software has become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling
> >> that something has changed (for the worse) in the Windows Update Web
> >> page process?
> >
> > There is a fundamental incompatability between the aims of anti-virus and
> > anti-spyware applications (which are intended to prevent changes to your
> > operating system) and Windows Update (which is intended to change your
> > operating system). There are plenty of reported examples where:
> >
> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application has caused a Windows Update to
> > fail, which succeeds when the anti-virus application is disabled;
> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application interferes with a Windows Update
> > which appears to succeed, but leaves the operating system damaged and
> > unusable in some way;
> > - an anti-virus application causes corruption to the system's internal
> > databases which keep records of applied updates, rendering the system
> > unable to apply any further updates.
> >
> > The way a user can defend themselves against these possibilities is to
> > ensure that any anti-virus/anti-spyware applications are disabled when
> > applying Windows Updates.
> >
> > --
> > Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
> > rdhw@cam.ac.uk
> >
>
>
>

Hi CHockla,

Believe me, the update problems are not your fault, nor due to anything you
are doing (or not doing).

Every once in a while, Microsoft screws up -- either in a security fix, a
process, or a Service Pack.

Then, once the problems that users begin to have because of what Microsoft
did become apparent, widespread and publicized, the explanations for the
fiascos are put on the backs of the hapless users, who were instructed by
Microsoft to download the source of the problem in the first place.

This latest update situation is one of those fiascos.

And true to form, the users are being blamed, and forced to waste hours of
their time to make things right.

Alan

"CHockla" <CHockla@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FB510BDD-9196-4E98-BE93-1D4832768501@microsoft.com...
> The problem is that this was a fresh install of Windows Vista Business.
> The
> only fire wall I have is the one that comes with the OS. I even disabled
> it
> and stoped the services for it and still having an issue. I only have
> this
> problem with Vista Business and no problems on my other computer with Vist
> Ultimate. I have this problem on two computers both fresh installs of
> Vista
> Business.
>
> I am not sure what they have diferent in business than in Ultimate, but I
> don't have the cash to buy Ultimate for 3 computers. I was running Vista
> ultimate and reloading every 30 days on the two that I just put Vista
> business that I purchased.
> I am not sure what the deal is with the two computers. I can tell you that
> I
> did not have any issues with Ultimate at all that I am having now with
> Business.
>
> "Alan" wrote:
>
>> Yes, Robin, I do understand that concept.
>>
>> However, there appears to be something that has recently happened either
>> to
>> the anti-virus, firewall and anti-malware applications that users have
>> had
>> installed for a long period of time.
>>
>> OR something has gone very wrong in the Windows Update process.
>>
>> Given that Microsoft has released various "fixes" in the last month or so
>> to
>> the update process because of LOT of people having problems that they
>> never
>> before had, I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame the situation on the
>> basic incompatibility scenario.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:O9b6fC5sHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> > Alan <somewhere@nospam.not> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
>> >>> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
>> >>
>> >> I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and
>> >> posters asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm
>> >> wondering about the point of the question.
>> >>
>> >> If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software
>> >> for the last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until
>> >> now, are you trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or
>> >> firewall software has become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling
>> >> that something has changed (for the worse) in the Windows Update Web
>> >> page process?
>> >
>> > There is a fundamental incompatability between the aims of anti-virus
>> > and
>> > anti-spyware applications (which are intended to prevent changes to
>> > your
>> > operating system) and Windows Update (which is intended to change your
>> > operating system). There are plenty of reported examples where:
>> >
>> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application has caused a Windows Update to
>> > fail, which succeeds when the anti-virus application is disabled;
>> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application interferes with a Windows
>> > Update
>> > which appears to succeed, but leaves the operating system damaged and
>> > unusable in some way;
>> > - an anti-virus application causes corruption to the system's internal
>> > databases which keep records of applied updates, rendering the system
>> > unable to apply any further updates.
>> >
>> > The way a user can defend themselves against these possibilities is to
>> > ensure that any anti-virus/anti-spyware applications are disabled when
>> > applying Windows Updates.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
>> > rdhw@cam.ac.uk
>> >
>>
>>
>>

I stumbled onto a fix that worked for me. I went into services and found in
Business they have BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) set to
Automatic delayed lol instead of automatic or manual. They have it set the
same with the service named wuauserv ( Windows Update). I set them both to
automatic and then stopped and restarted the services. Yeah I truly think
this problem is only prevelant to Vista Business though. I did not see this
issue in Vista Ultimate. I am not sure what the deal is because Vista
Ultimate is set to Automatic (Delayed) on both services. Anyways I am working
now with Vista Business on my other PCs. I am now able to run windows update
in Vista Business without any issues.

BTW I also made sure that in trusted sites that I put the entries below in.

http://*.update.microsoft.com
http://download.microsoft.com
http://update.microsoft.com
https://*.update.microsoft.com
https://windowsupdate.microsoft.com



"Alan" wrote:

> Hi CHockla,
>
> Believe me, the update problems are not your fault, nor due to anything you
> are doing (or not doing).
>
> Every once in a while, Microsoft screws up -- either in a security fix, a
> process, or a Service Pack.
>
> Then, once the problems that users begin to have because of what Microsoft
> did become apparent, widespread and publicized, the explanations for the
> fiascos are put on the backs of the hapless users, who were instructed by
> Microsoft to download the source of the problem in the first place.
>
> This latest update situation is one of those fiascos.
>
> And true to form, the users are being blamed, and forced to waste hours of
> their time to make things right.
>
> Alan
>
> "CHockla" <CHockla@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FB510BDD-9196-4E98-BE93-1D4832768501@microsoft.com...
> > The problem is that this was a fresh install of Windows Vista Business.
> > The
> > only fire wall I have is the one that comes with the OS. I even disabled
> > it
> > and stoped the services for it and still having an issue. I only have
> > this
> > problem with Vista Business and no problems on my other computer with Vist
> > Ultimate. I have this problem on two computers both fresh installs of
> > Vista
> > Business.
> >
> > I am not sure what they have diferent in business than in Ultimate, but I
> > don't have the cash to buy Ultimate for 3 computers. I was running Vista
> > ultimate and reloading every 30 days on the two that I just put Vista
> > business that I purchased.
> > I am not sure what the deal is with the two computers. I can tell you that
> > I
> > did not have any issues with Ultimate at all that I am having now with
> > Business.
> >
> > "Alan" wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, Robin, I do understand that concept.
> >>
> >> However, there appears to be something that has recently happened either
> >> to
> >> the anti-virus, firewall and anti-malware applications that users have
> >> had
> >> installed for a long period of time.
> >>
> >> OR something has gone very wrong in the Windows Update process.
> >>
> >> Given that Microsoft has released various "fixes" in the last month or so
> >> to
> >> the update process because of LOT of people having problems that they
> >> never
> >> before had, I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame the situation on the
> >> basic incompatibility scenario.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:O9b6fC5sHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> > Alan <somewhere@nospam.not> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Robin Walker [MVP]" <rdhw@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ux43YozsHHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Is there any firewall or anti-virus product on this PC that could
> >> >>> interfere with the correct operation of Windows Update?
> >> >>
> >> >> I see you asking the question here, and I've seen other MVPs and
> >> >> posters asking similar questions in other posts. I guess I'm
> >> >> wondering about the point of the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> If a user has been using the same antivirus and/or firewall software
> >> >> for the last year and has had no problem with Windows Updates until
> >> >> now, are you trying to determine if suddenly the anti-virus or
> >> >> firewall software has become 'rogue?' Or is it more of a feeling
> >> >> that something has changed (for the worse) in the Windows Update Web
> >> >> page process?
> >> >
> >> > There is a fundamental incompatability between the aims of anti-virus
> >> > and
> >> > anti-spyware applications (which are intended to prevent changes to
> >> > your
> >> > operating system) and Windows Update (which is intended to change your
> >> > operating system). There are plenty of reported examples where:
> >> >
> >> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application has caused a Windows Update to
> >> > fail, which succeeds when the anti-virus application is disabled;
> >> > - an anti-virus/anti-spyware application interferes with a Windows
> >> > Update
> >> > which appears to succeed, but leaves the operating system damaged and
> >> > unusable in some way;
> >> > - an anti-virus application causes corruption to the system's internal
> >> > databases which keep records of applied updates, rendering the system
> >> > unable to apply any further updates.
> >> >
> >> > The way a user can defend themselves against these possibilities is to
> >> > ensure that any anti-virus/anti-spyware applications are disabled when
> >> > applying Windows Updates.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
> >> > rdhw@cam.ac.uk
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Hi CHockla,

can you please show me the steps to do it?
I managed to define them as trusted sites, but failed to find any clue about
the services or BITS section you mentioned.

Thanx in advance.

"CHockla" wrote:

> I stumbled onto a fix that worked for me. I went into services and found in
> Business they have BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) set to
> Automatic delayed lol instead of automatic or manual. They have it set the
> same with the service named wuauserv ( Windows Update). I set them both to
> automatic and then stopped and restarted the services. Yeah I truly think
> this problem is only prevelant to Vista Business though. I did not see this
> issue in Vista Ultimate. I am not sure what the deal is because Vista
> Ultimate is set to Automatic (Delayed) on both services. Anyways I am working
> now with Vista Business on my other PCs. I am now able to run windows update
> in Vista Business without any issues.
>
> BTW I also made sure that in trusted sites that I put the entries below in.
>
> http://*.update.microsoft.com
> http://download.microsoft.com
> http://update.microsoft.com
> https://*.update.microsoft.com
> https://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
>

I have the same trouble.I even reinstalled the system,but the issue is still
being.So I agree with Alan.Maybe Microsoft should tell us what happened.

The error code exactly matches my problem, but I am using Vista Home Premium.
Tried CHokla's solution (both listed services are starting as
Automatic--delayed). BITS stayed as "Automatic", but WindowsUpdate switches
back to the ...delayed setting, even after applying "Automatic" -- I've
changed and applied that while the service was stopped and while it was
active, on separate occasions, but it keeps switching back on the next
startup.

I tried windows update after the above attempts, but am still getting error
code 8024402F.

I've done different sleuthing. Haven't found the logs referenced by Chockla
at the start of this discussion. But have looked through the event viewer
and found WindowsUpdate the last Event 41 (successful download) was 3/29/08,
and there were also Events #40 (check for updates) ?successful? after that
date through 4/7/08. Remembering that this is a secondary computer, not on
every day, the first Event #25 (Failure, Check for Updates) is on 5/9/08.

Addendum to above -- I found the windowsupdate.log, and pasted an excerpt
from my latest attempt today.
I've excluded start up messags from modules 1092-386 and 1092-bac, and the
immediately following set of messages from 1092-b60 related to Validating
signatures for various cabs (Microsoft signed: yes) for all and determination
that no new update handler is required.

Immediately following the opening set of messages just described are these
remaning messages. Perhaps someone knows where I could go from here...
2008-07-02 22:33:31:693 1092 b60 PT +++++++++++ PT: Synchronizing server
updates +++++++++++
2008-07-02 22:33:31:694 1092 b60 PT + ServiceId =
{7971F918-A847-4430-9279-4A52D1EFE18D}, Server URL =
https://www.update.microsoft.com/v6/...ce/client.asmx
2008-07-02 22:33:42:929 1092 b60 PT WARNING: ECP: Failed to validate cab
file digest downloaded from
http://www.download.windowsupdate.co...22635c0ea7.cab with error 0x80091007
2008-07-02 22:33:42:930 1092 b60 PT WARNING: ECP: This roundtrip contained
some optimized updates which failed. New Update count = 0, Old Count = 1
2008-07-02 22:33:42:930 1092 b60 PT FATAL: ProcessCoreMetadata did not
return any update to be committed
2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 PT WARNING: Sync of Updates: 0x8024402f
2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 PT WARNING: SyncServerUpdatesInternal
failed: 0x8024402f
2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 Agent * WARNING: Failed to synchronize,
error = 0x8024402F
2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent * WARNING: Exit code = 0x8024402F
2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent *********
2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent ** END ** Agent: Finding updates
[CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
2008-07-02 22:33:42:967 1092 b60 Agent *************
2008-07-02 22:33:42:967 1092 b60 Agent WARNING: WU client failed Searching
for update with error 0x8024402f
2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU >>## RESUMED ## AU: Search for updates
[CallId = {B9FDB036-9F4E-4DED-98A5-22E250AC1BD0}]
2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU # WARNING: Search callback failed,
result = 0x8024402F
2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU # WARNING: Failed to find updates with
error code 8024402F
2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU #########
2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU ## END ## AU: Search for updates
[CallId = {B9FDB036-9F4E-4DED-98A5-22E250AC1BD0}]
2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU #############
2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU Need to show Unable to Detect notification
2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU AU setting next detection timeout to
2008-07-03 07:33:42
2008-07-02 22:33:47:966 1092 b60 Report REPORT EVENT:
{A8E6EA30-1669-45A1-8C31-EDEAE513494E} 2008-07-02
22:33:42:966-0400 1 148 101 {00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000} 0 8024402f AutomaticUpdates Failure Software
Synchronization Windows Update Client failed to detect with error 0x8024402f.

Please begin a new thread about /your/ problems. Thanks.

The Taco Monster wrote:
> The error code exactly matches my problem, but I am using Vista Home
> Premium. Tried CHokla's solution (both listed services are starting as
> Automatic--delayed). BITS stayed as "Automatic", but WindowsUpdate
> switches
> back to the ...delayed setting, even after applying "Automatic" -- I've
> changed and applied that while the service was stopped and while it was
> active, on separate occasions, but it keeps switching back on the next
> startup.
>
> I tried windows update after the above attempts, but am still getting
> error
> code 8024402F.
>
> I've done different sleuthing. Haven't found the logs referenced by
> Chockla
> at the start of this discussion. But have looked through the event viewer
> and found WindowsUpdate the last Event 41 (successful download) was
> 3/29/08,
> and there were also Events #40 (check for updates) ?successful? after that
> date through 4/7/08. Remembering that this is a secondary computer, not
> on
> every day, the first Event #25 (Failure, Check for Updates) is on 5/9/08.

0x8024402F
The XML extracted from the wuredir.cab failed to load into the DOM

0x80091007
The hash does not match, the client fails to install the software update
and logs error 0x80091007

Either the Windows Update Agent [WUA] is damaged/corrupted, some of
it's files are not present or registered properly or, 3rd party software
or malware is interfering with it's communication with the update servers.

Try installing the WUA according to the steps laid out here:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/blog...showentry=1172

Suggest you install the WUA by first opening an Elevated Command Prompt
[ right click cmd and choose Run as administrator ]
Stop the Windows Update service
Install the WUA
Restart the WU service
Exit the Command Prompt
Restart the system

If no joy, then look to the installed sec software [including 3rd party
firewalls, popup/cookie blockers that are included in 3rd party
toolbars, IE add-ons, etc] as the culprit.
If still no joy, then do an online scan to see if malware is causing
this behavior: http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/virusscanner

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2008]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============



The Taco Monster wrote:

> Addendum to above -- I found the windowsupdate.log, and pasted an excerpt
> from my latest attempt today.
> I've excluded start up messags from modules 1092-386 and 1092-bac, and the
> immediately following set of messages from 1092-b60 related to Validating
> signatures for various cabs (Microsoft signed: yes) for all and determination
> that no new update handler is required.
>
> Immediately following the opening set of messages just described are these
> remaning messages. Perhaps someone knows where I could go from here...
> 2008-07-02 22:33:31:693 1092 b60 PT +++++++++++ PT: Synchronizing server
> updates +++++++++++
> 2008-07-02 22:33:31:694 1092 b60 PT + ServiceId =
> {7971F918-A847-4430-9279-4A52D1EFE18D}, Server URL =
> https://www.update.microsoft.com/v6/...ce/client.asmx
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:929 1092 b60 PT WARNING: ECP: Failed to validate cab
> file digest downloaded from
> http://www.download.windowsupdate.co...22635c0ea7.cab with error 0x80091007
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:930 1092 b60 PT WARNING: ECP: This roundtrip contained
> some optimized updates which failed. New Update count = 0, Old Count = 1
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:930 1092 b60 PT FATAL: ProcessCoreMetadata did not
> return any update to be committed
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 PT WARNING: Sync of Updates: 0x8024402f
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 PT WARNING: SyncServerUpdatesInternal
> failed: 0x8024402f
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:931 1092 b60 Agent * WARNING: Failed to synchronize,
> error = 0x8024402F
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent * WARNING: Exit code = 0x8024402F
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent *********
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:966 1092 b60 Agent ** END ** Agent: Finding updates
> [CallerId = AutomaticUpdates]
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:967 1092 b60 Agent *************
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:967 1092 b60 Agent WARNING: WU client failed Searching
> for update with error 0x8024402f
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU >>## RESUMED ## AU: Search for updates
> [CallId = {B9FDB036-9F4E-4DED-98A5-22E250AC1BD0}]
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU # WARNING: Search callback failed,
> result = 0x8024402F
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU # WARNING: Failed to find updates with
> error code 8024402F
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU #########
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:971 1092 cac AU ## END ## AU: Search for updates
> [CallId = {B9FDB036-9F4E-4DED-98A5-22E250AC1BD0}]
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU #############
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU Need to show Unable to Detect notification
> 2008-07-02 22:33:42:972 1092 cac AU AU setting next detection timeout to
> 2008-07-03 07:33:42
> 2008-07-02 22:33:47:966 1092 b60 Report REPORT EVENT:
> {A8E6EA30-1669-45A1-8C31-EDEAE513494E} 2008-07-02
> 22:33:42:966-0400 1 148 101 {00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000} 0 8024402f AutomaticUpdates Failure Software
> Synchronization Windows Update Client failed to detect with error 0x8024402f.
>