I have a test vlan set up in my office. I just tested the McAfee update and
it worked fine on 3.5.7. We were using the 3.5.4 client with the 3.5.6
upgrade patch when we found out there was a problem. Before I re-enable the
update rule, I will test it out on a few more machines. It appears to be
fixed so far though.
---------------------------------------
Brian Beausoleil
Network Services
Southern CT State University
[log in to unmask]
(203) 392-6109
-----Original Message-----
From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of King, Michael
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 3.5.7
3.5.7 hit the download site today....
I'm sure most people have done the same as us, and disabled automatic
upgrades... So people with test networks, let us know...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duguay, Gerard
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 12:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CCA 3.5.5 and McAfee DAT 4577
>
> Latest update from TAC is that 3.5.5 has a major bug,
> blocking McAfee auto-updates by locking-up the scan.dat file.
> They are working on a fix and anticipate client version 3.5.7
> by next Monday.
>
> - Gerard
>
> Gerard P. Duguay
> CIS, Seattle Pacific University
> 206.281.2431
> gerard(at)spu.edu
> <><
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pender, Anne
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CCA 3.5.5 and McAfee DAT 4577
>
> This "scan.dat is locked or missing" has been the bane of my week.
>
> We started seeing this error on Tuesday after agent 3.5.6
> came out (we had left the defaults so it went to everybody
> without our getting to do any testing). Finally traced the
> error to the new agent version, and have spent today helping
> students back out to 3.5.4 (via a batch file that uninstalls
> the bad before installing the good, wrapped up in a
> self-extracting zip).
>
> I won't know for sure that this has fixed it until enough
> people get downgraded that I feel safe switching the DAT
> requirement back to presenting the "update" button - right
> now it is presenting a link to a web page, which then links
> to the McAfee xDAT, which is able to update the DAT version -
> though a reboot is required.*
>
> It hasn't been the best week. The fact that you're seeing errors with
> 3.5.5 does not make me happy. Cisco assured us that 3.5.5
> did not have any of these issues, so 3.5.5 is now what you
> download from our server if you do a web login - though not
> too many should be doing that now.
>
> -Anne
>
> * Actually the xDAT is wrapped up with a batch file now too,
> because we had a number of folks somehow end up with
> correctly updated DATs files on the hard drive, but the
> registry a version back, so VirusScan denied it needed
> updates while Clean Access insisted it did. No idea if/how
> this is related to the other problems this week.
>
> --
> Anne Bower Pender
> Computing Support Analyst, Student Services Information
> Technology Services, Davidson College [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duguay, Gerard
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CCA 3.5.5 and McAfee DAT 4577
>
> We are running CCA (v3.5.5 across the board) and have
> suddenly run into errors with people trying to run McAfee
> updates -specifically to today's
> 4577 dat.
>
> # Any AV Definitions Check (Mandatory)
> * Passed Checks:
> * Failed Checks:
> av_def_ANY, Antivirus Check [Any supported AV software
> up to date]
> * Not executed Checks:
>
> On the client machine, they get an error that update failed
> because "scan.dat is locked or missing."
>
> This is odd in that McAfee updates have been working without
> error. I have machines that updated to dat 4576 yesterday
> just fine. Today they are failing with 4577.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this issue? Suggestions?
>
> - Gerard Duguay
> CIS, Seattle Pacific University
>
|
