CLEANACCESS Archives

August 2012

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:
Dan Taube <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:59:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (100 lines)
TimB - We detected this issue before our start up and did in fact test 
using the previous 4.8 agent we had and it showed expected 
authentication times.

However, working with Cisco in a TAC they indicated that there was an 
update to the 4.9.1.6 agent for resolution so we moved forward. In our 
lab machines we had authentication times around 20 seconds and posture 
assessment around another 20 seconds, but as students came onto campus 
we have had reports of up to several minutes.

Dan
--
Dan Taube
Illinois State University

On 8/21/12 1:40 PM, Deborah Hovey Boutchyard (dhovey) wrote:
> My servers are still 4.8.1 -
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Byrnes, Timothy A.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Slow login for Windows users
>
> Deb
>
> Are your servers on 4.9.x, and you're saying that simply using the 4.8.3.3 windows agent solved the issue?
>
> TimB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deborah Hovey Boutchyard (dhovey)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Slow login for Windows users
>
> We rolled back the Agent required and that solved the problem for now-  we rolled to 4.8.3.3 -
>
> Deb
> UMW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Blake
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Slow login for Windows users
>
> Are you doing a Windows update check?  I have noticed that can cause long logins such as you are describing.  I would try disabling it and seeing if it speeds up as a test.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Byrnes, Timothy A.
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Slow login for Windows users
>
> Any more info on this issue?  I haven't heard any complaints here (4.8.2), but I need to upgrade for OSX 10.8 support and am curious if this is limited to 4.9.1 installations.
>
> Timothy Byrnes
> Network Security Engineer
> Towson University / OTS
> Desk: 410.704.3813
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kurt Huenemann
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Slow login for Windows users
>
> I'm told that we're feeling it here too.  FWIW, we're on NAC 4.9.1.
>
> Kurt E. Huenemann
> Assoc. Vice President for Information Resources Heidelberg University
> 310 East Market Street
> Tiffin, Ohio 44883
> 419.448.2351
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Do not ever e-mail your password to anyone.
> CNIT will never ask for your password in an e-mail.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Albaugh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The last several days our Windows users are complaining of slow NAC
>> agent login.  Our Mac users can be logged in through the NAC agent in
>> about 15 secs once they enter their name and password and press
>> return.  Our Windows users are taking over 70 seconds to get logged in
>> when they used to take just 15-20 seconds.  Any one else suddenly
>> having this issue?  Last Tuesday was patch Tuesday for Microsoft (I
>> believe) and maybe there was an update that has affected just our
>> Windows users so I'll
>> have to check into that.   At first I thought it might have something to
>> do with being part of our
>> domain but removing a machine from the domain had no effect.  Any
>> thoughts are appreciated.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2