Jump to content

zhopkins

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

zhopkins last won the day on July 28 2016

zhopkins had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Peter, As it happens, we do already have Performance Exclusions in place for our Oracle database and Icinga. Additionally, when I first saw the issue on those servers, the first thing I did was to modify the ESET policy to disable scanning on file open (leaving only on file creation), but that did not seem to help. I might not be able to get to it this week, but I will spin up a server with the newer version of ESET so I can do some more direct testing for you all to try and figure this out. Thank you, --Zachary
  2. Peter, Some examples for you - RHEL6 / Oracle / EXT4 local disks / CIFS remote shares RHEL7 / Oracle / EXT4 local disks / No remote shares RHEL7 / Icinga2 / EXT4 local disks / No remote shares RHEL8 / DNSMasq / XFS local disks / No remote shares I'm fairly certain that we are not using EDTD, since that is a separately licensed product? It does not appear in the "Products & Licenses" section for the machines in the ESET PROTECT console. Overall, I believe most of the servers (some physical, most virtual) managed to get through with only minor slowdowns, however, the server that runs our Icinga monitoring became extremely unresponsive, to the point where I was unable to login via SSH or the console (even with root credentials). I had to push a task through the ESET Management Agent to stop the EFS daemon before I could log in.
  3. Not to hijack the thread, but we also ran into this same issue last week on Red Hat 6, 7, and 8 on both available versions of ESET Server Security in the 8.1 branch (8.1.565.0 & 8.1.685.0). The older ESET File Security 8.0.375.0 seems to be unaffected. At the time, we had no choice but to immediately stop the EFS daemon and subsequently uninstall it to restore our services. So, I don't have a lot of troubleshooting information from during the event. However, since we would like to eventually update the software, I would be happy to provide additional information or participate in testing to help figure things out.
  4. Marcos, the clients in question are all servers. They are online 24/7 and check-in every few minutes to ESMC.
  5. Martin, We restarted the ESMC server late last night, in hopes it would help the task to run at its scheduled time this morning. That did not help. However, restarting the client machines that were supposed to run the task, did help. Once restarted, the client machines immediately began to run the task. I also verified that the task UUID shows up in the trace log, and sure enough, it was right there on every single one (showing "generate a tick for a missed event", timer registration for the next occurrence, and the actual task execution). Your note about this being more likely to happen as time progresses also seems evident in our environment - roughly a third of the machines missed the task on the first run, followed by half on the next run, and closer to 2/3 on the subsequent runs. Thanks for posting, we'll be on the lookout for the next release!
  6. Even when changed from a CRON expression to just a weekly event, the clients are still not running this weekly task. I can manually select any client, and add the task with an "As soon as possible" trigger, and the client will begin execution immediately, so the overall task is fine, its just that the reoccurring task simply doesn't run on a random portion of the assigned clients. If anyone has any suggestions at all, it would be much appreciated!
  7. MichalJ's suggestion worked for us. We marked all of the related firewall alerts as resolved, and then modified our server policy to have the Log, Block, and Notify options set to "No", and it has been quiet ever since. B-G, just to confirm - if you open the File Security client on one of your machines and check its setup, I assume that you can see your desired IDS configuration there, with all of the options set to No? (Just making sure that it received the corrected policy)
  8. Yes, we're seeing this behavior too. After setting the first batch of alerts in ESMC, I found this post. I then added the policy exception (any alert, with a specific remote address, all other options at default), and marked the old threats as resolved. 24 hours and another Nessus scan later, and the alerts are back.
  9. We've setup a client task to install OS updates on a weekly basis to a select group of servers, but for several clients this task still shows as planned, never executed. We've gone through two weeks now, and the task still hasn't executed, with seemingly no explanation as to why. The client task runs the "Operating System Update" task. "Automatically accept EULA" is checked, "Install optional updates" is un-checked, and "Allow reboot" is checked. The trigger is applied to 25 individual clients, with a CRON schedule, "0 0 3 ? * FRI *" (Every Friday at 3am), no random delay, "Invoke ASAP If Event Missed" and "Use Local Time" are both checked. The trigger shows "Planned - Yes" for all 25 clients. The trigger shows "Last Status - Finished", along with a Last Progress Time and "Progress - Task finished successfully" for 17 of the clients. The remaining 8 clients have these 3 fields blank. All of the clients are checking in with the server at 5-minute intervals. The status.html files on the clients are all green. All of the clients are Windows 2008R2/2012R2, with Management Agent version 7.0.553.0. The server version is 7.0.553.0. All of the clients had at least 5 updates available and ready for install when the task was created. The agent trace logs appear unremarkable. Our timezone is US/Eastern, UTC-0400. The trace log from a client not executing the task is devoid of useful information (I checked at least 3 of them, and they only show the one line from today). I also checked a client that ran the task successfully last week, but had no further updates to install this week. This client's trace log for today looked identical to the client that isn't running the task. 2018-09-28 12:03:51 Warning: CEssConnectorModule [Thread 178c]: Set policy request to product was successfull The trace log from a client that did execute the task this morning, and successfully installed updates, looks to be chock full of details (file attached). If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions as to why some clients aren't running the tasks as requested, they would be much appreciated. Thank you! eset-tracelog_clientwithupdates.txt
  10. Has anyone else seen this warning message from Google Chrome? The message could be closed by typing in a different web address or re-launching the browser. The machine in question is running Windows 10 Education (1703), Eset Endpoint Antivirus 6.6.2072.4, and Chrome 67.0.3396.87. We're still testing Windows 10 build 1803, which won't go out for another month or so. We're also testing Eset 6.6.2078.5, which should be pushed out within 2 weeks, but I'd like to make sure that we're not about to get bombarded with a headache. Thanks!
  11. While the instructions provided in KB6512 work to manually enable the System Extension for Eset, are there any plans to automate this process for new installs or upgrades from ERA? We have 200+ computers running MacOS and the end users do not have administrative rights by default. We'd like to be able to push out the latest version of Eset Endpoint Antivirus (6.5.432.1) from ERA as folks transition from earlier versions of MacOS and Eset, but if they're going to be prompted to do something that they don't have rights to do, then that puts us in a bit of a pickle, adding additional work and manually touching the machines. If anyone from Eset has any knowledge on this topic, or if any community members have found a work around in the mean time, I'd love to hear. Thank you!
  12. For reference, the agent status page on macOS is located at /Library/Application Support/com.eset.remoteadministrator.agent/Logs/status.html.
  13. For reference, we've seen similar results in our environment. Most Mac clients would show up in ERA with a ".local", while a few would show up with the FQDN. We also had the added issue that some of our Macs were missing local configuration options, and while they would allow for Active Directory logins, their hostname (via command line) would not always match what was configured via the GUI, nor would they always show the FQDN. The quickest workaround that I found to eliminate duplicate computer accounts in ERA for our Mac clients was to alter the task on the ERA server that renamed synchronized computers. Instead of having it rename by FQDN, I switched it to just rename by Computer Name. Under this configuration, we no longer have duplicate accounts for our Mac clients. All of our Windows clients still show up in ERA by their FQDN, and the majority of our Mac clients now do too. Only 27 of our Mac clients (approximately 16% of our reporting Mac population) show up with just a short name. It may not be a 100% perfect solution, but it has eliminated our duplicate computer issues and given us a more accurate machine count.
  14. If you're looking to upgrade the management agent on your clients, or the server components on your server, there is a built-in task to do this. The "Remote Administrator Components Upgrade" client task will upgrade these items for you. When applied to a regular client (a workstation or file server), the ERA agent will be upgraded to match your ERA server. When applied directly to your ERA server, it will download and install the latest server components from Eset. It usually takes a few minutes for the clients to upgrade, depending on your connection interval, but the last server upgrade I did took a bit longer, at around 30 minutes.
  15. It took a little bit of fiddling, but I've been able to get Regex working in several of our templates. I've built most of my RegEx strings through sites like regexr.com or regex101.com, with some slight modifications to signify the beginning and the end of the strings. 1) Looking for clients that have some point-release of a version 5.x client installed (i.e. any 5.x version): "Installed software.Application version" → RegEx → "^5.\d.\d{4}.\d$" 2) Looking for clients that do not have "Server" in the operating system name: "OS edition.OS name" → RegEx → "^(?!.*Server).*$"
×
×
  • Create New...