After installation of KB4056892 boot failure, after roll-back error 0x800f0845

Anonymous
2018-01-04T22:13:27+00:00

Hi,

I have older AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, Asus MB, after installation of KB4056892 the system doesn't boot, it only shows the Windows logo without animation and nothing more. After several failed boots it do roll-back then it shows error 0x800f0845. Unfortunately, it seems it's not easy to disable the automatic updates without gpedit tweaks, so it tries installing and rolling-back the update over and over. The sfc /scannow shows no problem, in-place upgrade also doesn't seem to help. I can try full reinstall, but I doubt it will change anything. It seems like the update is binary incompatible with my old CPU. I understand that making the machine unbootable is the best protection from remote exploitation, but I would rather have the OS working. Especially if my CPU is not vulnerable to the Meltdown attack and the MS mitigation attempts for Spectre is more than questionable. I could find only some German and Italian people reporting the same issue (well the CPU is quite pre-historic and the KB update is very fresh), but no info / acknowledgment from the MS so far. I have Czech localization. Could anybody provide more information?

Windows for home | Windows 10 | Windows update

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments

494 answers

Sort by: Most helpful
Most helpful Newest Oldest
  1. Anonymous
    2018-01-17T19:39:37+00:00

    Looks like there is new news on this front.

    I went today to check status of the KB4056892 issue on this page:

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4056892/windows-10-update-kb4056892

    Followed the new link to this page just added today, 1-17-18:

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4073290/unbootable-state-for-amd-devices-in-windows-10-version-1709

    Says it is safe to unpause WU and install KB4056892 and then install KB4073290.

    I think I'll wait a few days, just to be sure the cure isn't as bad as the disease, ha ha.

    I might be missing something, but I don't read to install KB4056892 and then install KB4073290. I read to install KB4073290 only.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  2. Anonymous
    2018-01-17T19:37:40+00:00

    Looks like there is new news on this front.

    I went today to check status of the KB4056892 issue on this page:

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4056892/windows-10-update-kb4056892

    Followed the new link to this page just added today, 1-17-18:

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4073290/unbootable-state-for-amd-devices-in-windows-10-version-1709

    Says it is safe to unpause WU and install KB4056892 and then install KB4073290.

    I think I'll wait a few days, just to be sure the cure isn't as bad as the disease, ha ha.

    Excellent! finally they started to fix the bug in Windows 10!

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  3. Anonymous
    2018-01-17T17:48:29+00:00

    Gianni

    Where we are now.........

    Powered on

    KB4056892 showed blocked however it was attempting to install. At this time dism did not show that update.

    I was going to allow the install to go to 'waiting for restart' and then attempt to remove the package.

    Things did not work out that way.  By the time I returned to the update screen  activity had stopped.

    In update history KB4056892 showed " Failed to install on ‎1/‎17/‎2018 - 0x8024200d" (problem with the download and that its files are corrupted or missing) ..

    So good so far.  Checked for updates a few times and KB4056892 is not showing up. On the last check one Defender update was installed.

     I guess I have between 6 to 45 days to make a business decision.

    The real concern is, when or if ever this problem will be addressed.

    I will continue to monitor and update if anything interesting happens.

    Again, thanks, timing is critical and my timing was 'off'.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  4. Anonymous
    2018-01-17T17:45:23+00:00

    This is really annoying. If not for flash compatibility issues, I would switch to Linux Mint.

    Did you try Google Chrome? (as opposed to Chromium). It supplies google-modified binary of Flash, aka Pepper Flash.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments
  5. Anonymous
    2018-01-17T17:09:37+00:00

    This is really annoying. If not for flash compatibility issues, I would switch to Linux Mint.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments