you should push Lenovo as well, since this is a hardware issue. It may be that there's no software workaround.
Yep, sounds like a bios issue that Lenovo will need to fix. But good to see co-operation between McAfee and Lenovo, rather than the usual blame pointing that tends to occur when you have cross-vendor incompatibilities.
We notified Lenovo of the situation and I will post any updates here.
As it turns out this is a Lenovo L412 we are having the issue with. We suspect that version 4.2x of SafeBoot (I know, not supported) works fine on this machine with a docking station; we are confirming this now. If 4.2x does work this can not only be a hardware issue; something in the 5.2.5 code stream is more prone to hang with a unknown response from the hardware.
probably - v4 was a 16bit (dos-style) OS, v5+ is 32bit, so it works the machine harder and interacts much lower with the hardware. It's quite likely v5 will point out bugs that v4 simply does not care about.
The classic being of course a buggy BIOS usb stack - "Always Enable Pre-Boot USB support" is a classic example of that and needs to be DISABLED pretty much all of the time.
We have done some additional testing and preliminary results have found the following:
Client 4.27 --> boots in dock
Client 5.2.2 --> boots in dock
Client 5.2.5 --> fails to boot in dock
Have reported this to McAfee support.
We are experiencing the same issue w/ Lenovo L412 w/ EEPC 6 Patch 2. Any updates from Lenovo? We are just beginning our process of getting the tickets opened and just curious if you have any tips / tricks?
No fix available as of yet. The last report I received on our ticket is that McAfee and IBM are working on the issue together. McAfee wanted to confirm if the issue still occurs with BIOS v.1.25. Still waiting for those results, but I assume it will still be broken.
The only way around this is to start the machine outside of the dock; once past SafeBoot put it in the dock. Other than that still waiting for either a SafeBoot or BIOS patch to resolve this.
I noticed that the KB cites 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 only. Can anyone confirm whether or not 5.2.8 has this issue? I currently have the company at 5.2.6 and there are a few 412s and 512s out there experiencing this issue.