Keep us posted, please. :)





*ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker>
*Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
the SMB market...*



On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dave Lum <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well this should be interesting - I finally have Savant Whitelisting fully
> deployed (all 32 systems worth, LOL) at my primary %sidejob% client. By
> deployed I mean agent installed and put into "protected" mode.
>
>
>
> I have only seen three issues during the rollout period:
>
> 1.       [Two systems] Office 2013 exectuables got modified between the
> "monitor"(think inventory) period and "protect" period. Result: Savant
> flattened any Office 2013 attempt at trying to run. What the user would
> experience is clicking the Outlook icon and nothing happens.
>
> 2.       [Four systems] When printing to a network printer (it was always
> the same Ricoh on a 2012 R2 print server for a few users), a request to
> print one page would be met with spitting out about 20.
>
> 3.       [One system] A 3rd party app fails when running in protected
> mode, complaining about no access to some temporary location.
>
>
>
> The solution for 1 and 2 is to put Savant into "monitor" mode, run a
> Savant command called "append" and then flip it back to protected. The
> Savant agent also has a "learn" mode (which I used) which lets you take a
> system being impacted by the protected mode, put it in learn, run whatever
> application doesn't work right, then when you flip it back to protected
> mode you're presented with path and filenames that were observed and you
> can elect to accept none, some, or all of the changes so they are allowed
> when in protected mode.
>
>
>
> I haven't figured out #3 yet, but that system is low-risk so it may be a
> few days before I get to it.
>
>
>
> A side benefit is you get what is similar to SCCM reporting on how often a
> particular EXE or other file is opened, which can play into monitoring
> licensing needs, among other things.
>
>
>
> Should be fun...
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Reply via email to