Hi, we have a network of 150 VSE 8.5 clients maneged by ePO 4.0. It is not allowed to have a direct connection to the internet so we download dat or sdat files from McAfee and check them in to our 2 ePO repositories. I don't mind having to download >100MB of virus definition updates to the server, BUT is it really necessary to push such a big update file to the clients? Shouldn't there be a way to do incremental updates? Even with multiple repositories this is simply too much. Is there perhaps some policy setting in the ePO that I'm missing?
OMG.. I thought the 36MB sizes were crazy when I stopped using it. Sophos uses 2k-3k update files. Ages ago they had us upgrading to a new engine 4.0??? and one of the promised features was a much smaller truly incremental dat update ability. It never happened. When I read it's up to 100MB now I just cracked up.
How do I setup my clients to use upd/gem files? Do I need to download a different file (other than sdat) from McAfee? The only "incremental" file on the McAfee updates page is for "incremental engine updates". My ePO server is in an internal network that is not allowed to acces the internet.
I never even bothered to check in a superdat to epo last time I rebuilt it
my new installs pull down the avvdat-5xxx.zip (which is part of the daily DATS in your reposi) if they are old which is usually only about 60MB and if they are not that out of date (within about 15-20 days) they just use the gem files which are small.
do you have a superdat checked in? how out of date is your baseline vse install you have checked in?
It is a military network. We have pretty strict rules on this.
Anyway I eventually found the answer: I ought to have used the http://download.nai.com/products/DatFiles/4.x/NAI/epoXXXXdat.zip file found under the packages tab on McAffee's site with the confusing and unacceptable title "DAT Package For Use with Mcafee AutoUpdate Architect & ePO 3.0" (!!!). Of course it works with ePO 4.0 and higher and contains the incremental gem updates that I need. Would it be too much trouble for the McAffee admins to rename it? I'm sure most people will confuse it with legacy files for ePO 3.0, like I did. There are others complaining in the forum about this too.