Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 62 replies
  • Subscribers 0 subscribers
  • Views 195132 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

    Hello Bob,

    Thanks for the reply, much appreciate the open communication.

    The same to you :smileyvery-happy: - really

    I would have expected "managed endpoints" to receive their updating policy automatically

    This should normally be the case. Now ... as we're a university not a few devices are more or less BYOD. A user might download the installer at home or use the Wi-Fi "guest" network (which nevertheless requires authentication but does not connect to the "internal" network) and therefore RMS can't connect. We do want to be able to manage these devices when they are brought in (or properly registered so they have access to the internal network). 

    RMS is needed to have the chance to manage these devices (so the standalone installer falls short), OTOH the sooner they install and use a decent AV (actually it's required by the terms but we don't enforce it) the better - so the installer is available even if they are "out". 

    Christian 

    :44625
Reply
  • 0

    Hello Bob,

    Thanks for the reply, much appreciate the open communication.

    The same to you :smileyvery-happy: - really

    I would have expected "managed endpoints" to receive their updating policy automatically

    This should normally be the case. Now ... as we're a university not a few devices are more or less BYOD. A user might download the installer at home or use the Wi-Fi "guest" network (which nevertheless requires authentication but does not connect to the "internal" network) and therefore RMS can't connect. We do want to be able to manage these devices when they are brought in (or properly registered so they have access to the internal network). 

    RMS is needed to have the chance to manage these devices (so the standalone installer falls short), OTOH the sooner they install and use a decent AV (actually it's required by the terms but we don't enforce it) the better - so the installer is available even if they are "out". 

    Christian 

    :44625
Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML