Thanks for the information, and I completely agree.  But I still hold to 
the opinion that Cisco should convey this type of information, or even 
say "It's a Microsoft issue with how Microsoft handles DLLs".  I 
wouldn't have found this information if I hadn't found this list, and 
this is information which should be a part of CCA's FAQ on Cisco's site 
at the very least.


Ryan Dorman wrote:

>As you have most likely seen from earlier posts I've made we have run into
>issues with Microsoft updates on our campus as well.  WE locally host each
>hotfix as it comes out and have a procedure for the help esk to assist users
>with applying individual hotfixes if they fail after running windows update.
>I agree that this is not an ideal situation and we were not very happy to
>have to put it in place.  I can say that now that it is up and our student
>repair program and the help desk are up to speed it is a relatively painless
>setup.  CCA isn't perfect but as others have said, the MS patch methodology
>is the underlying problem.  The main point to walk away with is that no
>matter WHAT patch assurance/management/enforcement system you use from any
>vendor you will run into these issues.  For us the benefits of CCA FAR
>outweigh the inconveniences especially given the small percentage of users
>that get caught by this problem.  If you are having trouble keeping
>political buy in I would recommend preparing information on (if you network
>is anything like mine) how much better performance, security and reliability
>is since CCA was installed.
>
>  
>