Note
Access to this page requires authorization. You can try signing in or changing directories.
Access to this page requires authorization. You can try changing directories.
Question
Friday, December 13, 2013 9:46 PM
Background:
OS: Server Windows 2012 R2
SCCM 2012 R2 Service Manager
we are receiving the error Event 10031: An unmarshaling policy check was performed when unmarshaling a custom marshaled object and the class {45FB4600-E6E8-4928-B25E-50476FF79425} was rejected.
Any ideas how to resolve it?
All replies (15)
Monday, December 16, 2013 7:45 AM
Hello Scott,
I think this issue is more regarding SCCM issue, so I will move it to the correct forum.
There are SCCM experts who will help you better.
Thanks for your understanding.
Regards.
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click HERE to participate the survey.
Monday, December 16, 2013 8:17 AM
OS: Server Windows 2012 R2
SCCM 2012 R2 Service Manager
There's no product like "SCCM 2012 R2 Service Manager". It's either ConfigMgr or Service Manager. So what product are you having problems with?
Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de
Monday, December 16, 2013 3:37 PM
I cannot find any info related to this Event log. Please post the detailed info of this event including its Source.
Also, as Torsten says, What exact Product are you using?
Juke Chou
TechNet Community Support
Friday, December 27, 2013 8:42 PM
I am having the same issue. The product is SCSM 2012 R2 running on Server 2012 R2.
No error is shown from the client when a management pack is imported (which extends a class), but this is the error on the server:
EventID: 10031
Source: COMRuntime
An unmarshaling policy check was performed when unmarshaling a custom marshaled object and the class {45FB4600-E6E8-4928-B25E-50476FF79425} was rejected
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:47 PM | 1 vote
I've also encountered this annoying error so any news would be very appreciated...
Thanks in advance,
Dawid
Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:33 AM
I've also encountered this annoying error so any news would be very appreciated...
W2K12 STD
SCSM 2012 R2
An unmarshaling policy check was performed when unmarshaling a custom marshaled object and the class {45FB4600-E6E8-4928-B25E-50476FF79425} was rejected
Source: COMRuntime
Event ID: 10031
Thanks in advance,
Frank
Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:12 PM | 1 vote
Same issue here
Windows Server 2012 R2 and SCSM 2012 R2
An unmarshaling policy check was performed when unmarshaling a custom marshaled object and the class {45FB4600-E6E8-4928-B25E-50476FF79425} was rejected
Best regards Ingemar
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:20 AM
Same error here - connection to: "mscoree.dll" .NET 4 ?
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:33 PM
I also have this error on various Windows 2012 R2 servers running SQL, not Service Manager; in every case I've looked at so far, the process PID shows that the error is with an instance of MonitoringHost.exe running in SYSTEM context - in other words, the SCOM agent.
Rob Ford of Cireson suggests the technical reason for the error in this thread: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/systemcenter/en-US/e9a2b29d-f3fe-49e3-ba6e-a3772fe48a56/how-to-stop-an-unmarshaling-policy-check-was-performed-when-unmarshaling-a-custom-marshaled-object?forum=systemcenterservicemanager
but neither he nor anything else I've found explains whether it is an actual problem or just an annoying but meaningless event in the log.
I might open a case about it with Microsoft; if so, I'll post the results back here ...
After all is said and done, a whole lot more is said than done.
Friday, July 8, 2016 3:15 PM
Did you ever open a case and find any other resolution to this error?
thank you,
Friday, January 27, 2017 7:40 PM
I was having the same error, but class name was {0E119E63-267A-4030-8C80-5B1972E0A456}
I am using Windows 10
I searched the class name in Registry (I found three or four of it), changed the permissions of Administrators and System accounts to FULL for the keys and subkeys.
After restart, error was gone. I hope this helps.
Regards,
Monday, March 6, 2017 6:58 PM | 1 vote
I was having the same issue described in this thread. I found this https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msoms/2016/09/28/microsoft-windows-comruntime-error-on-your-oms-agents/
Which says this:
If you verify the Process ID, you will find that it is for a monitoringhost.exe process.
We have investigated this error and determined that the full data flow is being received and that this event is noise that can be safely ignored for now.
This event is logged because monitoringhost.exe is invoked with the EOAC_NO_CUSTOM_MARSHAL flag set. This will not allow Marshalling. Anytime Marshalling occurs, it will log this event.
This event is harmless and can be ignored. We have taken an action to review our code to see if we handle this event internally and remove this from your event logs. For the time being, if you see this message, keep calm and carry on.
I do in fact have the OMS agent installed on this box, so this was the answer for me.
Monday, April 24, 2017 7:26 PM
I've had a few errors show up recently since recent updates.. Given the current hacking climate, is it possible that new errors are showing up because MS is releasing quick fixes to block vulnerabilities recently discovered, and thus errors are generated if an exploit is attempted.
I'm basing this on the lexicon used, and the timing of these problems, as stated above: The word marshal, and marshalling being related to (possibly in this case) one having authority (MS?) to set things in order according to laws or rules.
Chip Cooper
Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 AM
Marshalling in this context has nothing to do with law enforcement. Marshalling is about transferring data from entity to another using a common format understood by both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalling\_(computer_science).
Marshalling in Microsoft terms is usually in reference to data transfer to and from a COM object but is used by and in other Microsoft technologies as well.
Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys
Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:15 PM
I believe you misunderstood me sir.
I can see that you connected the first paragraph to the second; and I was, but was referring to the increase in system errors due to Microsoft making quick fixes related to recent publication of NSC, FBI, CSI, etc methodologies of intrusions, and Windows vulnerabilities exposed. Thus, a rash of new errors hitherto unseen have been showing up lately, as I had gotten my system down to having only one error:
*The tib_mounter service failed to start due to the following error: *
The service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it because:
I disconnect my usb backup drive between backups, so a known error. Lately (last few months), several new errors have shown up in many parts of the system. Which I believe these are due to previously unknown or unpublished Windows vulnerabilities and Microsoft 'fixing' these vulnerabilities, and an error is generated when it's either catching an attempted exploit, receives bad data in the stream and/or incorrect authentication.
As far as marshalling, by "transferring data from entity to another using a common format understood by both." The concept to set things in order would fall under the category of moving data from one entity to another, as in marshalling men to catch, transfer, or gather, only in this case data. The set of rules or laws are the method in which the marshalling takes place; and refer to a concept of rules like in a referee. In other words to ensure that whatever method is used, in this case transfer, the receipt of the person or thing being marshalled (in this case data) is in the proper order, (method to handle the receipt of men or data, in this case. That the transfer follows acceptable guidelines, and the proper delivery of said men, or data in this case.
But, I didn't know specifically what the thing being marshalled was, whether is was to capture, transfer, or gather, and the method or purpose of the delivery, in the case 'changing to a common format". The concept of marshalling, as a word, is being used to define this process, which I presumed. What kind of data or information, or why, I didn't know, could have been anything but either way, it would, I'm pretty sure, act as a watchdog, or guard for the receipt, and ensure the transfer integrity of the delivery. Like, whether whatever is received has the proper credentials, in the right order, no bogus data, and that the successful transfer to the delivery site is done, whether internal to external, visa versa, or between two services, etc.
But, I do see why you thought I meant to police as in illegal activity; and yeah, sure that too! And I suspect the reason is also to ensure that whatever is being handled is what is proper, according to the rules and laws, upon receipt and delivered with the same integrity.
I do thank you for your response though, it narrows down the concept more clearly for me. And I'll also check out the link.
But to summarize, I understand the error now. Data received to be 'unmarshalled' was not in proper form or had invalid format, or didn't make sense, and it was rejected by some rule or law. (After all, laws are nothing but a set of rules.) Sounds like the marshal did it's job. The incorrect prisoner was not transferred, or didn't have the proper credentials. ;-) Too bad he made it all the way to the destination before they caught the error. lol Thanks again! I guess when things go right, we never realize the marshal is around. Good to know it's working!
BOCTAOE
Chip Cooper