CLEANACCESS Archives

August 2006

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:
Bill Davis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:59:12 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Students moved in this past week and I'm seeing close to 20% (~800 users)
with either Tablet or MCE version of XP.  I did set up duplicate rules of
the XP checks/rules/requirement and marked as windows_all.  We also set up a
subset of AV/AS rules to get most of them through the process, or exempt the
few remaining until the update comes out.

This works OK, but I noticed that XP Pro 64 bit version is identified as 
Win 2003 (another windows_all).  We could set up additional checks for XP
Pro 64-bit, but will this OS be correctly identified at some point and
treated in the same manner as Tablet and MCE version?

Thanks Rajesh for speeding up the upgrade process.  I release this is a
early release product, but my only real window for updating is in the
summer, so I try to get as current as possible and hold fast for the rest of
the year.  Maybe you could pass along to the development team that new
"features" should not be introduced at the beginning of August when all the
universities are facing a huge influx of first time users.  As long as we
know what is not working, we can adjust, but it is a scramble when we find
out only a week before.  This isn't a rant, just a request to consider the
plight of the university environment at this time of year ;)

I appreciate all your hard work and consideration of new features we recommend.

-Bill
William S. Davis
Network Security Administrator
Housing Technology Services
Colorado State University


On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:50:40 -0400, Michael Grinnell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>
>We made the decision to follow Todd's advice (thread Re: ETA on Added
>OS Detection on 8/11) to distribute the 4.0.0.1 agent instead of the
>4.0.1.0 agent.  The users that already had 4.0.1.0 can still login
>fine, and for them, we created some Windows_All rules to replace our
>Windows_XP rules that enforce firewall, SP2, autoupdates, etc.  See
>below for details.  We chose not to require AV for them currently, as
>you can't change the AV rules to work for Windows_All, and the cost/
>benefit for creating AV rules manually wasn't worth it.
>
>
>
>
>Michael Grinnell
>Network Security Administrator
>The American University
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2