CLEANACCESS Archives

January 2010

CLEANACCESS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mike Diggins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:32:48 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (133 lines)
Turns out the problem was related to a specific check, 
pc_Windows_ehkeyctl. On my system it was enabled for XP Media Center and 
Vista_All only. It should have been enabled for WindowsXP_All as well. 
Cisco wasn't sure why it didn't update properly, but a Clean Update 
fixed things.

-Mike


On 07/01/2010 11:28 AM, Mike Diggins wrote:
> Would anyone running a 4.1.6 CAM/CAS along with the 4.1.10 agent shoot
> me a copy of a SUCCESSFUL login report from a Windows XP Professional 32
> bit computer please? I want to see what checks are normally failing.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On 05/01/2010 2:38 PM, Mike Diggins wrote:
>> It appeared all of my Windows XP users were being blocked because the
>> Windows Update check (cisco checks) failed. I have the requirement
>> turned off right now. It's not clear if the failure was the result of
>> one of the two reported failures, or something else. I've given Cisco
>> the debug log from a failure. Hopefully they can figure it out, although
>> it appears no one else is having this problem but me.
>>
>> I HATE this product!
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>> On 05/01/2010 10:32 AM, Kurt Huenemann wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I see that our XP clients also "fail" these 2 checks, but those failures
>>> do not prevent them from passing the overall Windows_Update_Requirement.
>>> Given the if/and/or logic of these requirements, it can be perfectly
>>> okay to "fail" some individual checks, as long as the overall
>>> requirement is being met.
>>>
>>> Are your users being denied access because of these 2 items? That would
>>> be different from what I'm seeing here.
>>>
>>> HTH.
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Diggins wrote:
>>>> I'm running CCA 4.1.6 CAM/CAS with the 4.1.10 Agent. This morning I
>>>> updated to the latest Cisco Checks, as I normally do once a month.
>>>> After doing so most (possibly ALL) of my Windows XP users are failing
>>>> the Windows Update check. Vista doesn't seem to be affected.
>>>>
>>>> Failed Checks list two, one of which seems to be XP 64 Bit related,
>>>> which I'm not running. The other relates to the file JScript.dll. It
>>>> seems to be looking for V5.9, but all my test XP systems are V5.8, and
>>>> Windows Update reports the systems are fully patched. Furthermore,
>>>> this same failed checked was reported before I updated, but the system
>>>> passed the check despite that!? I've opened a case with Cisco, but
>>>> just wondered if anyone else is seeing this?
>>>>
>>>> User: diggins Operating System: Windows XP Pro/Home Agent Version:
>>>> 4.1.10.0 Agent Type: Windows Agent
>>>>
>>>> System Name: PC128671511049 System Domain: n/a
>>>>
>>>> System User: Administrator User Domain: PC128671511049
>>>>
>>>> 1. Supported Antivirus Software NOT installed (Optional)
>>>> * Passed Checks:
>>>> av_inst_ANY_vendor
>>>> * Failed Checks:
>>>> * Not executed Checks:
>>>> * Description:
>>>> 2. Antivirus Definintions older than 30 days (Optional)
>>>> * Passed Checks:
>>>> mac_TrendMicro_Installed
>>>> * Failed Checks:
>>>> av_def_ANY, Antivirus Check [Any supported AV software up to date] see
>>>> Client AV Info for details
>>>> * Not executed Checks:
>>>> * Description:
>>>> 3. Install Microsoft Windows Updates (Mandatory)
>>>> * Passed Checks:
>>>> pc_Windows-XP-SP3
>>>> pc_XP_KB956844_MS09-046
>>>> pc_Windows-JScript-ver5_6
>>>> pc_XP_KB969947_MS09-065
>>>> pc_XP_KB971961_MS09-045_JS58
>>>> * Failed Checks:
>>>> pc_XP64, File Check [c:\windows\syswow64\kernel32.dll exists ]
>>>> pc_Windows-JScript-ver5_9, File Check [$SYSTEM_32\Jscript.dll later
>>>> than 5.9.0.0]
>>>> * Not executed Checks:
>>>> pc_KB952954_MS08-046_XP_SP3
>>>> pc_KB952954_MS08-046_XP_SP2
>>>> pc_Windows-XP-SP2-int
>>>> pc_XP_KB958869_MS09-062
>>>> pc_XP_KB971557_MS09-038
>>>> pc_Windows-XP-SP2
>>>> pc_KB958644_MS08-067_XP_SP3
>>>> pc_KB958644_MS08-067_XP_SP2
>>>> pc_XP_KB973525_MS09-055
>>>> pc_MSXML3_MS08-069_XP
>>>> pc_KB971633_MS09-028_XP
>>>> pc_XP_KB973507_MS09-037
>>>> pc_KB923789_MS06-069_XP_SP2
>>>> pc_IE8_0
>>>> pc_KB938127_MS07-050_XP_SP2_IE7_V2
>>>> pc_KB956802_MS08-071_XP
>>>> pc_IE7_0
>>>> pc_KB958687_MS09-001_XP
>>>> pc_KB961371_MS09-029_XP
>>>> pc_KB961371_v2_MS09-029_XP
>>>> pc_IE6_0
>>>> pc_Flash_6r79_Registered_LC
>>>> pc_Flash_6_0_79
>>>> pc_Flash_6r79_Registered_UC
>>>> pc_KB938127_MS07-050_XP_SP2_IE7
>>>> pc_KB960803_MS09-013_XP
>>>> pc_Windows-XP-SP3-int
>>>> pc_XP_MCE_KB973768_MS09-037
>>>> pc_XP_KB971961_MS09-045_JS57
>>>> pc_XP_KB971961_MS09-045_JS56
>>>> pc_XP_KB976325_MS09-072_IE8
>>>> pc_XP_KB976325_MS09-072_IE7
>>>> pc_XP_KB976325_MS09-072_IE6
>>>> pc_XP_KB973869_MS09-037
>>>> * Description:
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2