EES Remote activation issue

[Sarvesh Singh 1]

One of our customer has installed ERA 6 on windows 8 system. Firstly he has added NFR license on ERA and then activated few Clients AV, after some days later he received his new license, so he removed NFR license from ERA & added new license and then again triggered activation task from server selecting new license, even after successful task, client expiry date and license detail doesn't change in client AV. Also tried activating license on individual client but same issue. 


I tried activating remotely and separately on client system but same issue. 

Screenshot of the client details as follows: 
Screesnshot_1: Client PC, still showing old license after activating with new license remotely. 

Screesnshot_2: Client PC, still showing old license after activating with new license remotely and separate activation on Client. 

Screesnshot_3: Client PC, Showing new license activated individually (No remote task) 

Screesnshot_4: New License uploaded on ERA. 

Screesnshot_5: Activation Task created with new license. 

Screesnshot_6: Task finished Successfully but still Expiry date doesn\'t change (Clients are screenshot_1 & 2) 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Sarvesh Singh

[Sarvesh Singh 1]

3 days has passed but no reply....
No one at ESET is active on forum to reply...

Edited August 8, 2016 by Sarvesh Singh

[jimwillsher 65]

Is the client computer successfully connecting to ERA?

[Sarvesh Singh 1]

Yes it is connecting.. Even task shows successful...

[MartinK 378]

We can see that old license is being reported as not managed by ERA. Do you recall whether it was as this even before re-activation with new license?

Is it possible to dissociate specific computer remotely from ELA and check what is going on in ERA - hopefully client will start to use new license. Also when you check ELA, can you see which license is used by client computer. I am just guessing but there is a chance that endpoint is actually activated with both licenses, but is reporting the old one until it it is valid. There could be also a bug in ERA showing only one instead of multiple licenses.