This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Can Enterprise Console manage non domain computers?

Recently I installed Enterprise Console 4.0 in the server. Besides computers in the domain, there are also some computers in the network but are not in the domain. Can Enterprise Console manage these non domain computers? I can find these computers by using "find by IP address" option. But when I tried to "protect" them, it asks for user name and password. I put in local admin user name and password of the computer but it shows errors. Can someone help on this? Thanks in advance.
:500


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Hello LY

    I have rephrased the subject - you not only want to manage them (install Sophos by whatever means on the clients which then connect to the management server) but also use Protect Computers.

    Yes, it can be done. The credentials necessary for protect computers are IMO the most confusing part of SEC. While error indication has improved compared to previous versions and the explanation is much better it's not intuitive. I'll try to explain.

    Protect Computers does the following

    • From the server an immediate task is scheduled on the client. For that to work RPC must be running (available) on the client, Firewalls must permit these connection and you have to connect with an account with sufficient rights to schedule a task on the client. Obviously you have all this but still ...
    • The task is started on the client which uses calls the setup.exe (with some parameters) from the bootstrap location (CID) using (IIRC) a UNC path. Since the task runs with the credentials you specified for scheduling it this user must have permission to access the CID. The server hosting your CID must permit network access by non-domain accounts or (horrors) anonymous access, and share and NTFS permissions must allow read access.

    SEC4 is - at least that's my impression - now checking the latter when you try to use Protect Computers  (previous versions did not and you got an error from the scheduled task) and if the requirements are not met the command fails immediately.

    Hope this helps

    Christian

    (can't resist :smileywink: I checked it very thoroughly, and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is.)

    :502
Reply
  • Hello LY

    I have rephrased the subject - you not only want to manage them (install Sophos by whatever means on the clients which then connect to the management server) but also use Protect Computers.

    Yes, it can be done. The credentials necessary for protect computers are IMO the most confusing part of SEC. While error indication has improved compared to previous versions and the explanation is much better it's not intuitive. I'll try to explain.

    Protect Computers does the following

    • From the server an immediate task is scheduled on the client. For that to work RPC must be running (available) on the client, Firewalls must permit these connection and you have to connect with an account with sufficient rights to schedule a task on the client. Obviously you have all this but still ...
    • The task is started on the client which uses calls the setup.exe (with some parameters) from the bootstrap location (CID) using (IIRC) a UNC path. Since the task runs with the credentials you specified for scheduling it this user must have permission to access the CID. The server hosting your CID must permit network access by non-domain accounts or (horrors) anonymous access, and share and NTFS permissions must allow read access.

    SEC4 is - at least that's my impression - now checking the latter when you try to use Protect Computers  (previous versions did not and you got an error from the scheduled task) and if the requirements are not met the command fails immediately.

    Hope this helps

    Christian

    (can't resist :smileywink: I checked it very thoroughly, and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is.)

    :502
Children
No Data