1. If the ePO package installation of SAE detects any of the three supported browsers to be open, it creates a RunOnce task for the SAE installation to continue after reboot. But the install task is considered as a failure (only if) the installation task is not running as “SYSTEM”.
If the installation is running under the context of a user, a message box is displayed to alert the user, informing that the installation will resume after reboot. There is no force-closing of the browser.
Which method are you using to roll out the SAE install? If you're still seeing issues, the SAE debug logs (if upgrade scenario), SAE install / upgrade / uninstall logs, ProcMon logs would be required.
2.No switches have been changed in the installer for Patch 5. The SAE installer by itself doesn’t make use of any of the switches; it receives and passes over the switches to MSI. The standard MSI switch for silent mode is /q
SiteAdvisor/Web Adviser is definitely a huge pain to administer. I've had tons of issues over the years with failed/broken installs when trying to push via ePolicy when browsers are open. I ended up submitting a product enhancement request a while ago, requesting malicious website blocking be handled without a browser plugin. Sophos and Fortinet, for example, can inject URL "block" messages into web browsers without the need for such plugins. Fingers crossed that this will be implemented in the near future.
McAfee Client Proxy is a separate product that does browser control without a browser plugin.
There is a SAE removal tool that is ePO deployable. Earlier patch versions of SAE could see issues with upgrades due to VSE access protection. You can also try disabling access protection and do the upgrade again.
I appreciate the input, but controlling access protection policies for 30,000+ machines is a management nightmare as well as a security risk. We also have very limited resources for ePolicy management.
MCP is integrated into ENS 10.5, but we still need Web Advisor for blocking because we're not licensed for MWG. I feel like we shouldn't have to pay additional licensing for a web gateway solution to have this plugin-less functionality.