Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 62 replies
  • Subscribers 0 subscribers
  • Views 195116 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
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

SEC 5.2.1 and Sophos for MAC OS X Preview (9.0.3)

QC

Decided to give the Preview of Anti-Virus for Mac OS X, version 9.0.3 a try. Chose an old MacBook (running 10.4) as guinea pig. After assigning the alternate policy updating failed with a rather vacuous Error: Could not update Sophos-Anti-Virus at .... Update failed. No indication of the nature or the error and surprisingly no indication of the update location used. 

Now, the error was not unexpected - 9.0.x requires MAC OS X 10.6 minimum but perhaps a more meaningful message could be issued. Anyway I checked the update location and found that it named ESCOSXL as source folder - obviously indicating the changed requirements (though I can't figure out what the L stands for :smileyhappy:).

Admittedly pre-10.6 versions should be rare by now (I've found two 10.5 installations still in use out of about 100). But the folder name change will affect unmanaged or occasionally off-site clients (yes, Cloud is the answer :smileywink:). I've found no reference though (I'd have expected this in the Release Notes). Even as it is Preview you should be required to discover this important information on your own.

Christian   

:43783


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hi Christian,

    Today administrators wanting to deploy version 9 will set up a new subscription with a new policy, assign that new policy to a group, and move their endpoints into that group. SEC will then send a new policy to the endpoint to direct them to the CID containing the version 9 package. Similar things happen when administrators move existing policies to a version 9 subscription (when not moving endpoints around in groups).

    By "configured updating via your own servers" I mean to say that if administrators are using SEC to generate the CID but then copying or otherwise distributing the package to endpoints via a customized mechanism, there may be some changes needed, due to the change in the CID folder name to ESCOSXL. Its nearly impossible for me to predict what that might entail since I don't know how that sort of customization might have been set up.

    Does that help?

    :44385

    ---

    Bob Cook (bob.cook@sophos.com) Director, Software Development

Reply
  • 0

    Hi Christian,

    Today administrators wanting to deploy version 9 will set up a new subscription with a new policy, assign that new policy to a group, and move their endpoints into that group. SEC will then send a new policy to the endpoint to direct them to the CID containing the version 9 package. Similar things happen when administrators move existing policies to a version 9 subscription (when not moving endpoints around in groups).

    By "configured updating via your own servers" I mean to say that if administrators are using SEC to generate the CID but then copying or otherwise distributing the package to endpoints via a customized mechanism, there may be some changes needed, due to the change in the CID folder name to ESCOSXL. Its nearly impossible for me to predict what that might entail since I don't know how that sort of customization might have been set up.

    Does that help?

    :44385

    ---

    Bob Cook (bob.cook@sophos.com) Director, Software Development

Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML