It's pretty clear the October Update isn't the fix it is supposed to be. Each scenario I have tried winds up requiring debug logging to be enabled.
For testing purposed, if your system is managed by ePO you'll either need to remove it from such or create a test policy under Endpoint Security Common > Options that enables Debug Logging. Then in ePO for the test machine break inheritance to the current policy (my default maybe) and assign the test policy to it.
@kylekatso yeah, it looks like your "newer" ENS entry is 393232, in other words, "off and out of date..."
So it's like you're right back to where you started... as the OP, no progress for you...
If you're brave enough, I'd clear the AV classes from WMI using the VB script I mentioned previously, let WDA and ENS re-register, and see if your issue is resolved.
@Former Member, this issue is definitely not resolved. Even if my suggestion above works, enterprise IT managers can't be expected to go to every client endpoint and run random VB scripts to clean up McAfee's mess...
Shot myself in the food trying to clean my AV providers in WMI to get rid of the duplicate...
ENS and WDA both re-registered upon reboot (and no duplicates), but ENS is now 393232 even though it's on and up to date...
Entire issue has returned... wiping all McAfee out of this computer and starting over...
Definitely still broken...
WSC/WDA & ENS coexistence completely broken again.
@Former Member, I'm beginning to think this was never working and still isn't fixed, which is probably why there is no release note about it. My earlier success today could be due to anything, including the simple act of updating ENS, which set the productState to 397312. But turning Debug logging on did that for a time as well...
Can you double check that this issue has actually been fixed in the October release build so we don't keep chasing our tails?! If there's no release note about it, and everyone here who has posted recently is still having issues with it, then it's not fixed.
Please re-open SR: 4-20058973171. When I try to, by responding to an email for it, it replies to me, indicating,
This is a system-generated message in response to your email about SR # <4-20058973171>. This service request is currently closed and this e-mail is not being monitored.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you believe that this service request was closed in error and need further assistance, please contact our Technical Support team using one of the methods listed below.
I'm done jumping through hoops.
Just deployed the update to my own system & can confirm also still having the issue after reboot.
Will update my support case with the same... Or not, as the case is closed & can't be updated...
All - please reach out to the owners of your cases with this feedback. Please collect the same data you have previously been supplied with and we can ask engineering to review this again. Based on your feedback now it would indeed seem the issue is not resolved.
As I mentioned before, we handed out the Early Access Release to customers who raised this issue with us and all responses we got from those tests we successful. This exact same build has since been released GA, so I'm surprised to hear that it doesn't work.
I can't comment on why it never made the release notes, what goes in them is a decision made by the Engineering and Content Team themselves. Based on the feedback of the EA Release and our internal testing, we had considered this resolved.
Thank you for Drilling down into this and all your Debug testing which took Hours when not days that nobody will pay.
And i absolute agree that Closing your case is not what they should have done. That immense pressure they have in Sophia and India to close all tickets is immense AND it does not relay help customers.
You can allwyas reopen the case (Mean Nothing esle then you can spend another 3 Hours witrh Sophia on the phone)
The issue is not taking serious we think. We understand that it's a MIX between Microsoft and Mcafee and nobody want to be responssible.
@Mcafee is this where it should be? At development?