2 Replies Latest reply on Feb 27, 2012 6:48 AM by dmease729

    Ramifications of forcing install of SuperDAT exe?

    dmease729

      Hi,

       

      As I was looking into another query I had, I stumbled across KB59164 (How to Perform a forced installation of a SuperDAT file) - Although it advises on how to perform a forced install, and it got rid of what appears to be an aesthetic issue, I am just wondering what situation you would have to be in in order to run a forced install, and if there are any ramifications of doing so?

       

      Background: https://community.mcafee.com/message/225652

       

      cheers,

        • 1. Re: Ramifications of forcing install of SuperDAT exe?
          sbenedix

          Never come across anything weird with the /f switch. You would only use it in situations where all other methods of updating fail as it "forcefully" rips out old stuff and puts new stuff in place (engine + dat). It should only be used in troubleshooting scenarios for single machines, not in scripts which are applied across a whole enterprise for example. So, use with caution.

           

          An SDAT always contains engine and DAT,  XDATs are "DAT package installers" so contain no engine. The SDAT is 64 bit compatible (it wasn't always), since early 2011 if I remember correctly.

           

          Buffer Overflow and Access Protection DATs are delivered with product updates in most cases, there have been 2 or so occasions when BOC Dat updates were put on the usual updater websites, but its rare to use this avenue for updates of the BOC Dats.

           

          Hth.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Ramifications of forcing install of SuperDAT exe?
            dmease729

            Cheers for the feedback,

             

            Main reason I am asking is that the manual application of the SDAT files is required for one of our sites, and the error I got in https://community.mcafee.com/message/225652 looks to be aesthetic.  As another team will be applying these updates, I will need to let them know that they may see this error (when not using /f), and can ignore it, or tell them to always use /f which completes smoothly.

             

            cheers,