Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 62 replies
  • Subscribers 0 subscribers
  • Views 195168 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
    bobcook wrote:

    In addition to the retirement of SUM we've been revising (e.g. completely replacing) the installer mechanism we used in v8, and this gives us the chance to rethink how and why the various different versions are deployed. Hence more quesitons. Do you simply send these users the installer? How often do you update that installer? How much after-installation support do you tend to offer these users?

    Currently, the .mpkg configured by SUM is packaged in a .dmg file and stored on a network volume where it is accessible for first time installs (it is periodically updated, about once a year or so) - the preconfigured .mpkg contains all of the update/scanning/ notification settings. We generally have not needed to provide after-installation support (other than when a threat has been detected and the user has contacted us) as the installation/updating/scanning has always worked rather successfully from an end user perspective (hence why we are looking to replicate the same pre-configuration functionality with the version 9 installer).

    :48648
Reply
  • 0
    bobcook wrote:

    In addition to the retirement of SUM we've been revising (e.g. completely replacing) the installer mechanism we used in v8, and this gives us the chance to rethink how and why the various different versions are deployed. Hence more quesitons. Do you simply send these users the installer? How often do you update that installer? How much after-installation support do you tend to offer these users?

    Currently, the .mpkg configured by SUM is packaged in a .dmg file and stored on a network volume where it is accessible for first time installs (it is periodically updated, about once a year or so) - the preconfigured .mpkg contains all of the update/scanning/ notification settings. We generally have not needed to provide after-installation support (other than when a threat has been detected and the user has contacted us) as the installation/updating/scanning has always worked rather successfully from an end user perspective (hence why we are looking to replicate the same pre-configuration functionality with the version 9 installer).

    :48648
Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML