We do have the 2 following updates who are cycling (daily) reinstall on clients.
KB4072698.exe (IVA18-001), with about 300 computers OK, mainly servers, but also win7 and win10 PRO computers, and about 600 repeating the install (only win7+win10 PRO).
kb4078130.exe, with about 600 OK, and 300 reinstall cycling (also only Win7 + win10 PRO)
We do have the 3010 return sucess result, asking for a reboot, that is normal and usual.
But all the same rebooting, the computer still reinstall them, and repeat reboot asking.
Did you already get issues this style ?
OK well after some investigation, I guess what's can happen... I will check and tell you.
To get you a more focus, we are talking about the 'spectre' mitigation, and the KB4078130 is used for canceling the IVA18-001... Of course, just provided as is, but if you read the comment, you'll understand is restablishing the state before the spectre mitigation action... So if you just deploy both, a little bit useless, because cycling activate, deactivate !
What is strange, is the proportion computing cycling, only partial are cycling...
Here is the KB article with information on these two bulletins: http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH249167
I agree that situation is confusing but not sure that supersedence is the answer there as it would have prevented users from installation of KB4072698 (leaving them only with an option to disable Spectre mitigation).
I extract the execution to detect each computers was the same repeating, so sure, those 2 updates were correlated issue !
Do not deploy any patch without reading what it does, but of course, it is difficult to remember all previous installed, so what is a pity, was not providing from Symantec the information about the correlated UPDATE it will cancel, should configure kb4078130 "superseeding" the KB4072698, but yes, not really, in fact...
That is the point. Can i suggest to rename it and include the DEACTIVATE KB4072698 in the name, or at least in the description, so we can immediatly identify we have to care another update.
Thanks a lot @Dmitir, I was not finding this KB TECH249167. You are right I think, I update my comment to suggest to put the relation to the previous Update in the name or description, not a good Idea to use "superseed".