activex com Results

Page 1 of 3.
Results 1...20 of 50

Sponsored Links:

Please follow the link to my post at WinXP forum here.

I have tried Win XP with Access XP and IIS 5.1 and I got ActiveX component can't create object

Tim K.

I have found an activex component for triggering TWAIN devices, including scanners, on the internet.
(VintaSoft Twain control -VSTwain.dll - see
When I try the examples that come with the trial version for Excel 2000 and Word 2000 they work perfectly.
But I can't get it to work in Access 2000. I thought I had gone through all the correct steps to register the component
(TOOLS/ACTIVEX CONTROLS ETC) and have put a reference to the dll in the visual basic screen for my application/database
but it refuses to work. Tried the regsvr32.exe method too but still no go.
In the example given the control seems to be properly registered and listed as an object.
But in my Access application it doesn't appear, although the libary is shown in the Object browswer and all the methods and properties
correctly listed.
Am I missing some step here?
Please elucidate!

I have D-Link DWL 650+ Wireless network card in my Laptop--a 600mhz Dell Inspiron 3800, which is running Windows 2000. I have used the card in conjunction with a DL614+ Wireless acess point since about the beginning of this year up until about a month ago, when I started having one problem after another with it. First, I got occassional "STOP" errors (Windows 2000 blue screen type fatal errors), then the card would no longer show up as a Wireless network card, but instead as a regular
"Plain Jane" network card" and Windows would keep popping up the "New hardware found" wizard, asking me to set up the driver (which has already been set up for that card.) I Then had D-Link replace the card, only to find that the replacement card was completely dead--no sign of the card being detected at all. When I contacted D-Link to find out what was going on, they explained to me that there are certain issues between D-Link's card and the BIOS in some Dell computers. I then questioned why the old card, up until a month a go, worked okay, and they told me that it's quite possible that since this issue is somewhat of a more recent one, the old card was manufactured before this type of problem started to happen--that the replacement card is a newer card. The D-Link technician strongly recommended that I upgrade the BIOS to the latest version, which I did, to no avail. What, if I may ask, is going on here?! Could it be that

the first network card went on me, and also that D-Link replaced it with a DOA?

Or, is it more likely that something in my hardware/PCMCIA slot went (which I don't believe because I'm using--right now, in fact--a Xircom "wired" network card without a hitch, and my Cardbus to USB 2.0 PCMCIA card also works fine),

something went bad in the "Firmware",

or that it's a Software related issue (perhaps the Windows 2000 registry had gotten corrupted.)

I wanted to try and isolate the Windows 2000 aspect by switching my hard disk to an old one that I had, where I could test a clean Windows 2000 installation, but couldn't get the stupid drive out of the system (the caddy is in so tight that I can't budge it..that's another story).

Lastly, I tried running Norton utilities (Windoctor), and occassionally it finds something (like a problem with the ActiveX/Com section of the registry), but after it fixes the problem, I still can't get the lousy wireless card to work.

Does anyone have any ideas?

P.S. My email inbox is jammed up with spam, but if you wish to send me a direct email, please us the address, and indicated my name in the Subject box. You may also try reaching me by phone at (718) 423-7969 or (718) 225-5598 today, evenings and weekends, or at (212) 244-7704 during business hours (9-5 e.d.t., M-F).

Thank you,
Steve Weber


Microsoft fixes threats to video and ActiveX

By Susan Bradley

Microsoft released a slew of fixes for Internet Explorer, Excel, and ActiveX — mostly for threats that are more possibilities than real.

Excel gets the most patches, but there are critical updates to Adobe and Apple products, too.The full text of this column is posted at (paid content, opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.

OK, here is another tough question...

Where can I find a reference to the Internet Explorer ActiveX Compatibility flags? Clearly, 0x00000400 (1024) is the "Kill Bit" (, but if you check your registry at "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerActiveX Compatibility", you will find several other flags listed. I cannot find a single GOOD and COMPLETE reference to this information at * or through google.

This data must exist SOMEWHERE!! Does anyone know? Thanks.

said by Norton WinDoc:
"HeaderFooter.HeaderFooter.l refers to an invalid ActiveX/COM entry {30c3f6cd-98b5-11cf-bb82-00aa00bdce0b}"

Verified. Here is the registry section in question:

@="Template Printer class"


The CLSID listed ({30c3f6cd-98b5-11cf-bb82-00aa00bdce0b}) simply does not exist in the registry. In fact, the only reference to this CLSID in the registry is in this key. Therefore, this is a dead-end reference that is non-functional.

The only other reference to this CLSID on the Internet is in French -- and seems to be reporting the same information.

Since the CLSID is invalid, you may wish to delete it. On the other hand, since it does NOTHING anyway, it may be a moot point...

said by Norton WinDoc:
This key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentV ersionSharedDLLs refers to a missing file: C:WINDOWSSYSTEMIEMenu.OCX

Verified. This is because IE6 sp1 deletes the IEMenu.ocx ActiveX control, and it is supposed to remove all references to this control and the "PopupMenu" object type.

Microsoft simply forgot to remove this reference to the deleted ActiveX control. Since it points to a non-existent control, you can delete the "C:WINDOWSSYSTEMIEMenu.OCX" value in that key.


Windows Update seems to want you to put this value into your registry, or it will inappropriately tell you that you need to re-apply the March 7, 2002 Security update:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentV ersionInternet Settings

If you don't include the "q313829" in that value, Windows Update thinks you don't have the Update installed. This is erroneous -- as IE6 sp1 includes the March 7, 2002 Update (shell32.dll is updated to version 4.72.3812.600).


SOME users are inappropriately being told they need to re-install the Java VM update from March 4, 2002. This is also erroneous IF your Java VM is updated to version 5.00.3805. You can verify your version of Java VM by opening a Run box and Entering "wjview".

To prevent Windows Update from giving you that erroneous message, you need to modify this registry key to correct the version/build number:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESoftwareMicrosoftActive SetupInstalled Components{08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608500}

Simply modify that value to show the 3805 build number.

Please note: Windows Update DOES have a separate NEW update to Java VM that was released yesterday (9 Sept 02). This one DOES need to be installed, but Windows Update may tell you to upgrade to version 5.00.3805 first!

Ccleaner version 1.30.310 has been released. Get it at CCleaner - Crap Cleaner free software download - Spyware FREE. From the web site:

What's New
v1.30.310 - [2nd June 2006]
- Added Opera 9 detection and cleaning.
- Fixed bug in Uninstaller tool.
- Fixed overflow error when Secure Deleting large files.
- Fixed bug in ActiveX/COM Issue cleaning.
- Updated Desktop shortcut cleaning to include Quick Launch.
- Added Windows Defender cleaning.
- Updated Nero Burning ROM cleaning.
- Startup speed increase.
- Minor bug fixes and display tweaks.


Greetings to all

I have a recurring problem which is confusing me.
I run Norton Utilities 2002 on a regular basis which reports the same two problems each time I use it despite claiming to have repaired them when I click the repair button.
The report states that there are two invalid application identifiers in the ActiveX/COM section of the Windows Registry of medium severity. As mentioned, it claims to have repaired them but they reappear after reboot.
My system appears to run OK.
I would be grateful for any suggestions.


In todays WOW, there was a complaint about there not being a way to manage the ActiveX controls on your computer. Well, there is a way and it's been around for a couple of years now. If you go to, they have links to software they wrote that is hosted by there's a web version of the interface as well as a standalone executable. Both versions will list all the controls on your system, will display details about these controls, and will let you delete them. The web version has some explanatory text.

I think my basic question is: how do I update an Adobe Flash Player ActiveX version?
I have Windows 7 Pro, 64-bit. I use Firefox 12.0. I check my Firefox plug-ins daily. Shockwave Flash is now at version My Microsoft updates are fully up-to-date.

I have Internet Explorer 9, 64-bit and 32-bit. I don't use IE, and can't remember a last time I had to use it.

When I do need to update "Shockwave Flash," the action button takes me to That page shows "Your system: Windows 64-bit, English, Firefox." It further states "Note: The 64-bit Flash Player installer includes both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of Flash Player."

The last update download file was #.adobe.install_flashplayer11x64_mssd_aih(v11.2.20 2.235).exe. (I prehend #.adobe. and insert the version number in parentheses. It works, and that way I know what it is.)
Looking at the Control Panel recently, I noticed "Flash Player (32-bit)." Maybe it's been there all along, but I don't recall seeing it before. (And note the 32-bit in parentheses on a 64-bit system.) Clicking on it opens "Flash Player Settings Manager." Click on the Advanced tab and midway down I find:

ActiveX Version:
Plug-in Version:
How do I update the ActiveX version? Is this the right question? Is Internet Explorer somehow involved?


Three bad registry entries since installing SP2, detected by Norton Windoctor:

ProgID, "MailFileAtt," refers to an invalid ActiveX/COM entry, "{00020D05-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}."

ProgID, "mapifvbx.object," refers to an invalid ActiveX/COM entry, "{41116C00-8B90-101B-96CD-00AA003B14FC}."

ProgID, "mapifvbx.object.1," refers to an invalid ActiveX/COM entry, "{41116C00-8B90-101B-96CD-00AA003B14FC}."

Windoctor's solution is to delete the entries, but that seems a bit harsh to me. Any ideas as to what might be the consequence of having these bad reg entries? I've experienced no problems with any Office programs, including Outlook.

My MIL runs Ccleaner free edition. Keep in mind I'm in Florida, she's in New Jersey, so I can't see what she's seeing.

Runs the standard pre-set registry cleaner once a week. Recently this msg comes up when running the registry cleaner:

ACTIVEX /com issue

The COM component COMSFTArchiver Device Info references an invalid CLSID. These are often left behind after uninstalling the software.

Windows 7 Home edition. MSE. Malwarebytes paid version.

PC is approx 4 months young. It is a Dell and we removed all the bloat software that was loaded onto the system (same system as I have, same bloat removal, no issues on mine).

I'll be up there in October and would like to help this go away if I can. It doesn't appear to affect anything else - her PC performs just fine.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thank you!


I have been having trouble with blue screens and freezes. I'm not very proficient at sorting out these problems so looked for help. Found PC Doctor OnCall and ran it. The results are as follows;
Invalid ActiveX COM File (3 problems)
Missing File
The following file was not found on your hard drive during the scan:
Missing File
The following file was not found on your hard drive during the scan:
Missing File
The following file was not found on your hard drive during the scan:
Invalid ActiveX COM SubSection File (3 problems)
Missing Files
Same 3 as listed above.
Invalid Microsoft Shared File (1 problem)
Missing File
The following file was not found on your hard drive during the scan:

Where can I find info and or software to replace the missing files?
Or is it a matter of searching for, finding and activating the missing files?
Any suggestions appreciated.

Not sure if it's in the right spot, or if it's been done.

Internet Explorer 9 Preview

At the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) 2009 day two keynote (see my PDC coverage), [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Microsoft[/COLOR][/COLOR] president Steven Sinofsky showed off a very, very early version of Internet Explorer (IE) 9, the next major version of Microsoft's now-venerable web browser. This was an unexpected development, given that Internet Explorer 8 (see my review) shipped earlier this year and was just included with Windows 7 (see my review), which shipped last month. But Microsoft clearly wanted to demonstrate that it would continue advancing IE at a rapid pace, meeting criticisms of the current product and--the real surprise--delivering on some unexpected functionality.
What we don't know about IE 9 is a much broader discussion than that about what we do know. It's early yet, so that's OK, but I do want to set some expectations: The very early IE 9 preview build we saw this week at PDC did not contain any hint at all about the future user interface or other functional aspects of the browser. In fact, the build used in the keynote, and the one I saw separately in a meeting, lacked any kind of user interface at all. It's just a bare window frame that's designed to let the rendering engine do its thing and show off the few bits of functionality Microsoft is now publicly committing to.
"This is just a preview, an early look at where we are with IE 9 for developers," IE general manager Dean Hachamovitch told me during a briefing. "We're focusing on three very specific areas: Performance, interoperability standards, and hardware acceleration."

Anyone hoping that Microsoft would do something radical like adopt a competing web rendering engine (like WebKit) or even more radical, like dropping IE all together (and yes, those people are out there) will likely be confused by this early focus. And judging from what I've seen from people's reactions to the keynote demonstration online, there's further confusion about what was announced. I'd like to take this time to try and communicate what's really happening.

With IE 8, Microsoft argued that browser performance wasn't something that could be easily measured with benchmarks because overall performance is more holistic. The company's success at communicating that message is debatable, and while Microsoft's own published performance results were pretty favorable, IE 8 tends to get pummeled in independent comparisons with Mozilla [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Firefox[/COLOR][/COLOR] and Google Chrome.
For IE 9, Microsoft appears to be addressing IE performance issues head-on. The company explained this week that it examined how similar sites actually tax browsers in different ways--some are script-heavy, for example, while others are not--and its architecting IE 9 to handle these different needs properly.
In my briefing with Hachamovitch this week, he told me that scripting performance was typically an area in which competing browsers appeared to work more quickly in benchmark tests. So they looked into that and have already made big improvements in very early alpha builds when compared to IE 8.
"We're looking at the performance characteristics of all the browser sub-systems as real-world sites use them," Hachamovitch wrote in a blog post this week. "Our goal is to deliver better performance across the board for real-world sites, not just benchmarks."
To me, performance is straightforward: It either performs well or it doesn't. There's no way to say whether IE 9 will be as faster, or even faster than, competing browsers. But let's just say that Microsoft's decision to focus on this is wise.
Interoperability standards

Microsoft has taken a lot of flak for its lackluster adherence to web standards, but the company appears ready to reverse that reputation in IE 9. "The focus here is on the stuff that developers use to build the web," Hachamovitch told me. "We're lining up a bunch of platform work. Our [web standards test] scores will go up."
More specifically, this means adhering to the latest web standards, such as HTML 5 and CSS3 Selectors. At the keynote, there was a demo with CSS-based rounded corners in an element border. That's very specific, of course, but it's something that IE 8 doesn't do properly today. The current, very early IE 9 version correctly utilizes 41 of the 43 [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]CSS[/COLOR][/COLOR] Selectors and scores 574 out of 578 in its CSS3 Selectors test, a big improvement over IE8, which scored 330 out of 578.
Right now, what we have is a promise here. Microsoft also met very specific standards needs in IE 8, but it failed to deliver on far more. Hopefully as IE 9 evolves over the next year, we'll discover that the browser is not just another evolutionary step towards standards compliance but is instead the version that puts IE over the top. Otherwise, I expect an exodus of users to more compatible browsers.
Hardware acceleration

Working hand-in-hand with Microsoft's performance aspirations for IE 9 is a surprising browser capability: GPU-backed [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]hardware [COLOR=blue ! important]acceleration[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. "This is the coolest but least understood aspect of IE 9 we announced," Hachamovitch said. "We've moved the IE rendering engine from GDI to DirectX."
There are two benefits to this approach. First, the web doesn't have to be rewritten to take advantage of this functionality, as it's just provided by using IE 9. And second, web developers can now seamlessly take advantage of all of the benefits associated with PC hardware advancements that have happened over the past few years. The GPU is no longer just used for games, 3D user interfaces, and other graphics-intensive applications.
The confusion here relates to expectations about hardware-accelerated graphics. When some people hear such a thing, they automatically think about gaming. But IE 9's hardware acceleration has nothing to do with gaming. Instead, it's all about performance and fidelity. The browser just performs better, of course. But it also makes everything--especially text--look better.
The performance stuff is pretty obvious: Navigating around a Bing map, for example, you can readily see that IE 9 renders far more quickly--and with much less [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]CPU[/COLOR][/COLOR] overhead--when GPU acceleration is enabled. But the overall fidelity improvements were, to me at least, unexpected. Text rendered through the GPU with Direct2D exhibits none of the jaggies you see with standard, GDI-rendered text. And the effect is especially impressive when you zoom in and out of textual displays. It's like the difference between ClearType- and non-ClearType-based text, except this time, sub-pixel rendering is just the starting point.
"Direct2D finds more pixels on the edges and smoothes out jaggies," Hachamovitch told me. "It provides smoother animations as well. The performance is amazing. Web sites get better in IE on Windows."
Some have also confused this functionality with WebGL or other standards-based rendering schemes. These people are missing the point, Hachamovitch said. "It's just a subsystem. This means that whatever others do on top of the browser will have better performance and clarity as well."
Hachamovitch also noted that other browser makers have only done some minimal, edgy work around hardware acceleration. The reason is simple: Its hard work. "Games utilize this technology, of course, but let's face it, games don't print. We have to make sure IE works as before with hardware accelerated rendering. You want your boarding pass to just print. You want ActiveX controls and Flash video to just work. That's what we're working on."
Final thoughts

Having spent a grand total of about 60 second tooling around with a very early IE 9 build I'm obviously not qualified to offer any sweeping statements about how the finished product will work. But I'm heartened by Microsoft decision to move quickly in improving IE and release a major out-of-band version of the product that is not tied to any Windows version. My expectation--which is based purely on speculation--is that Microsoft will deliver a beta version of IE9 the MIX conference in March and then deliver the final version sometime around October 2010, which is the same time I expect the company to ship Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1). (I suppose there is a small chance that IE 9 could be shipped as part of SP1, but that seems unlikely to me.) In any event, we should know a lot more about IE 9 in March.
--Paul Thurrott
November 18, 2009

Enjoy. VI :-)

64-Bit Office 2010 Client Installation Resources Available for Download - From Microsoft - Softpedia

Microsoft is providing free resources designed to streamline the adoption of the 64-bit (x64) version of Office 2010. Essentially, customers looking to deploy 64-bit Office 2010 can download a client installation porter, available for free from the Redmond company in .PDF, .VSD AND .XPS file formats. The model is set up to offer an overview of the 64-bit client installation of Office 2010, with details available for setup, processes, requirements, deployment considerations, and supported scenarios. The 64-bit Client Installation of Microsoft Office 2010 resources can be downloaded immediately and printed for offline use.

Office 2010 provides support for running 32-bit Office 2010 applications on 64-bit Windows operating systems by using Windows-32-on-Windows-64 (WOW64). WOW64 is the x86 emulator that enables 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows systems. Office 2010 lets users continue to use existing 32-bit Microsoft ActiveX Controls, Component Object Model (COM) add-ins, and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), an excerpt from the poster reads.

Theres little doubt that 64-bit (x64) CPUs are becoming prevalent in systems shipping today, and tied inherently to 64-bit (x64) operating systems. Office 2010 clients are designed to play nice with the 64-bit editions of Windows Vista SP1 and later, but also Windows Server 2008 SP1 and SP2, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. One downside to opting for 64-bit (x64) Office 2010 is that the vast majority of extensions designed for the productivity suite are compatible exclusively with the 32-bit (x86) flavor of the product. In this context, customers should first assess their environments for potential incompatibility problems before deploying x64 Office 2010.

Processors that are 64-bit are becoming the standard for systems that range from servers to desktop computers. 64-bit systems can use more virtual and physical memory than 32-bit systems. This lets users work with much larger data sets than they could previously, and to analyze and solve large computational problems. Microsoft Office 2010 introduces native 64-bit versions of Microsoft Office products to take advantage of this larger capacity, but many users of Office are unlikely to require the 64-bit version. For example, this additional capacity is needed only by those Microsoft Excel users who require Excel spreadsheets that are larger than 2 gigabytes (GB), Microsoft added.

I'm trying to register activex component but it fails.

So far:
*Tried making .reg file with the correct parameters, and another one typing the full path too.
*Tried from the Run
*Tried from the Console as shown on the picture
*Tried unregistering then registering again
*Checked the permissions over system32 folder, Administrator have full permissions
*Placed the file elsewhere and used fullpath, still fails.
*Set up VirtualBox machine, installed my current OS from the disk and nothing else, it worked like a charm.

I am the only user, thus, administrator, but I anyways tried running all the methods above as administrator.

I'm out of ideas.

After an update on the computer from windows, it now says that it is not a genuine copy of windows. I have windows 7 ultimate 64bit.

i tried to do a system restore to a few days ago. still didn't fix anything. i downloaded the MGADiag.exe tool and here is what it spit out.

I looked around on the forums but didn't see anything. Still looking around though. I also tried going in through the and elevated Command Prompt and typed slmgr.vbs -ipk and the product key but still gave me an error. Says it was blocked.

from the mgadiag.exe tool:

Diagnostic Report (1.9.0027.0):
Windows Validation Data-->

Validation Code: 50
Cached Online Validation Code: 0xc004c4a2
Windows Product Key: *****-*****-9B736-V2WVR-46GBG
Windows Product Key Hash: y1lGVy6iTvPH8HEqBl7+sBKpeDQ=
Windows Product ID: 00426-067-2234613-86920
Windows Product ID Type: 5
Windows License Type: Retail
Windows OS version: 6.1.7600.2.00010100.0.0.001
ID: {BF348753-E946-48B7-833E-3489371A4106}(1)
Is Admin: Yes
TestCab: 0x0
LegitcheckControl ActiveX: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Product Name: Windows 7 Ultimate
Architecture: 0x00000009
Build lab: 7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909
TTS Error:
Validation Diagnostic:
Resolution Status: N/A

Vista WgaER Data-->
ThreatID(s): N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002

Windows XP Notifications Data-->
Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
File Exists: No
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
WgaTray.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
WgaLogon.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002

OGA Notifications Data-->
Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
OGAExec.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
OGAAddin.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002

OGA Data-->
Office Status: 109 N/A
OGA Version: N/A, 0x80070002
Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Office Diagnostics: 025D1FF3-364-80041010_025D1FF3-229-80041010_025D1FF3-230-1_025D1FF3-517-80040154_025D1FF3-237-80040154_025D1FF3-238-2_025D1FF3-244-80070002_025D1FF3-258-3

Browser Data-->
Proxy settings: N/A
User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Win32)
Default Browser: C:UsersFrankAppDataLocalGoogleChromeApplicationchrome.exe
Download signed ActiveX controls: Prompt
Download unsigned ActiveX controls: Disabled
Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins: Allowed
Initialize and script ActiveX controls not marked as safe: Disabled
Allow scripting of Internet Explorer Webbrowser control: Disabled
Active scripting: Allowed
Script ActiveX controls marked as safe for scripting: Allowed

File Scan Data-->

Other data-->
Office Details: {BF348753-E946-48B7-833E-3489371A4106}1.9.0027.06.1.7600.2.00010100.0.0.001x64*****-*****-*****-*****-46GBG00426-067-2234613-869205S-1-5-21-1557109013-1843655650-3137966581GatewayGM5478Intel Corp.DPP3510J.15A.0216.2007.0530.131620070530000000.000000+000DCB93607018400FA04090409Central Standard Time(GMT-06:00)03GATEWASYSTEM 109

Spsys.log Content: 0x80070002

Licensing Data-->
Software licensing service version: 6.1.7600.16385

Name: Windows(R) 7, Ultimate edition
Description: Windows Operating System - Windows(R) 7, RETAIL channel
Activation ID: a0cde89c-3304-4157-b61c-c8ad785d1fad
Application ID: 55c92734-d682-4d71-983e-d6ec3f16059f
Extended PID: 00426-00172-067-223461-00-1033-7600.0000-1902010
Installation ID: 016264625162698923544335194746147360760122269826714021
Processor Certificate URL:
Machine Certificate URL:
Use License URL:
Product Key Certificate URL:
Partial Product Key: 46GBG
License Status: Notification
Notification Reason: 0xC004F200 (non-genuine).
Remaining Windows rearm count: 3
Trusted time: 7/9/2010 11:12:54 AM

Windows Activation Technologies-->
HrOffline: 0x00000000
HrOnline: 0xC004C4A2
HealthStatus: 0x0000000000000000
Event Time Stamp: 7:9:2010 10:47
ActiveX: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395
Admin Service: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395
HealthStatus Bitmask Output:

HWID Data-->

OEM Activation 1.0 Data-->

OEM Activation 2.0 Data-->
BIOS valid for OA 2.0: yes
Windows marker version: 0x0
OEMID and OEMTableID Consistent: yes
BIOS Information:
ACPI Table Name OEMID Value OEMTableID Value

It also forwards me to website to buy the key again, but the site just looks fake to me....takes me to this and downloads a validation update. Then it says I may be the victim of counterfeiting software...

It eventually gets me to this website to order the key. It just feels fake.

I have had Ultimate installed since late February and have never had any problems.

Any help would be great guys. Sorry if I'm just throwing out things left and right, it is very frustrating.

Below is an article written by Ed Bott: XP, Vista, or Windows 7: Which OS is more secure? | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report |

Over the past couple years, I’ve been regularly checking in to measure whether Windows Vista is living up to its promise of being more secure than its predecessor, Windows XP. (To catch up with previous installments, see October 2007, “One year later, Vista really is more secure,” and July 2008, “21 months later, Vista is still more secure than XP.”)
My metric is a simple but effective one: count the number of Microsoft Security Bulletins rated Critical or Important for different Windows versions over time. In both previous installments, Vista had a significant edge edge over XP, with far fewer updates required. Has Vista maintained its security advantage over the past year? And are there any indications as to how Windows 7 will fare, now that it’s been released to manufacturing?
The answer to both questions is yes.
It’s far too early to make definitive judgments about the relative security of Windows 7, but Microsoft’s shiny new OS had a banner first month. A total of eight Microsoft security bulletins were aimed at various Windows versions. Three of them were rated Critical for both Windows XP and Windows Vista, even with the most recent service packs. Another two security updates were rated Important for Windows XP and Moderate for Windows Vista.
But for all eight of the August 2009 security updates, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 were listed under the Non-Affected Software heading. Not a single one of those security holes required patching in the new OS.
That’s the same pattern that Windows Vista established when it was new. And Vista has maintained its safer-than-thou reputation in the past year. I went through every single security bulletin Microsoft published for the past 12 months, from September 2008 through August 2009. The totals?
Windows XP: 22 Critical, 16 Important
Windows Vista: 18 Critical, 11 Important
That’s a 24% reduction in the number of patches rated Critical or Important—the kind that typically involve remote code execution or escalation of privileges. Or, to put it another way, that’s 3.2 patches per month for XP and 2.4 patches for Vista. (And the next time someone complains about the number of patches they have to install for Windows, be sure to show them that number: 2.4 patches per month, delivered automatically on the first Tuesday of each month, isn’t exactly overwhelming.)
So what’s the difference? Security Bulletin MS09-032 is typical:
This security update resolves a privately reported vulnerability ‘t that is currently being exploited. The vulnerability in Microsoft Video ActiveX Control could allow remote code execution if a user views a specially crafted Web page with Internet Explorer, instantiating the ActiveX control. This ActiveX control was never intended to be instantiated in Internet Explorer. …
This security update is rated Critical for all supported editions of Windows XP….That vulnerability doesn’t exist in Windows Vista or in Windows 7. And both of those newer operating systems have an additional advantage. As the bulletin notes: “Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights.” That, of course, is the whole point of the user model that was dissed so thoroughly in Windows Vista. But it seems to be working

Previous description:

In our office we have two Windows 7 machines showing the same experience below that has been detected due to the network admission control agent not running (the NAC agent runs using the IE engine):

When IE 8 32-bit is run and a page with an ActiveX control is loaded the prompt to run/install it is displayed.
ActiveX control is able to install fine and then the page will sit.
Testing ActiveX at I am able to install the ActiveX, but result in just the yellow box with nothing inside of.

When IE 8 64-bit is run everything works fine, pending that it is a 64-bit ActiveX control.

I have completed a reset of IE as well as removing it through Programs and Features and re-adding it. Both computers have been scanned for malware and had returns that were able to be removed as well as the discovery of suspicious folder located at C:/programdata/ that was just random letters. In both computers, the letters were different for the folder name, but they contained the same number of files and same type of files inside (application files along with activex components). These also did not display until hidden and system files/folders were displayed.

Any suggestions would be appreciated as this prevents our users from launching the NAC agent to be able to log onto our network. Also, the suspicious files have been submitted to our security software vendor, but we are waiting to hear back. EDIT: Original problem seemed that is was an ActiveX problem, but now it seems that the issue is actually the running of Javascript in IE8 32-bit. It has been reset and remove/reinstalled, but it cannot be repaired.

Have attempted to register the jscript.dll as well, but no luck. Can install the IE 9 beta and javascript works fine in both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions. However, IE 8 repair is required.

Today, we released Security Advisory 2794220 regarding an issue that impacts Internet Explorer 6, 7, and 8. We are only aware of a very small number of targeted attacks at this time. This issue allows remote code execution if users browse to a malicious website with an affected browser. This would typically occur by an attacker convincing someone to click a link in an email or instant message.
Internet Explorer 9 and 10 are not affected by this issue, so upgrading to these versions will help protect you from this issue.
While we are actively working to develop a security update to address this issue, we encourage customers using affected versions of Internet Explorer to deploy the following workarounds and mitigations included in the advisory to help protect themselves:

Set Internet and local intranet security zone settings to "High" to block ActiveX Controls and Active Scripting in these zones
This will help prevent exploitation but may affect usability; therefore, trusted sites should be added to the Internet Explorer Trusted Sites zone to minimize disruption.Configure Internet Explorer to prompt before running Active Scripting or to disable Active Scripting in the Internet and local intranet security zones
This will help prevent exploitation but can affect usability, so trusted sites should be added to the Internet Explorer Trusted Sites zone to minimize disruption. Deploy the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET)This will help prevent exploitation by providing mitigations to protect against this issue and should not affect usability of websites.An easy guide for EMET installation and configuration is available in KB2458544.
Over on the SRD blog, MSRC’s own Jonathan Ness and Cristian Craioveanu go over some of the issue details. We are also actively working to package an easy, one-click Fix it solution that will help protect your computer. In their blog, Jonathan and Cristian describe the shim that will be included in the Fix it, and how it will be able to be used to help prevent the exploit from succeeding. We expect the Fix it will be available in the next few days and will update this blog when it is ready.
As always, we encourage people to follow the "Protect Your Computer" guidance of enabling a firewall, applying all software updates and installing anti-virus and anti-spyware software. We also encourage folks to exercise caution when visiting websites and avoid clicking suspicious links, or opening email messages from unfamiliar senders. Additional information can be found at
We are monitoring the threat landscape very closely and if the situation changes, we will post updates here on the MSRC blog and on Twitter at @MSFTSecResponse.
Thank you,
Dustin Childs
Group Manager, Response Communications
Trustworthy Computing


Page 1 of 3.
Results 1...20 of 50