Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Hi Zoltan, When you upgrade the server, the updated clients will be allowed to connect the first time (trust on first use) and automatically exchange the certificates. Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/05/2018 10:45:19 AM: > From: Zoltan Forray <zfor...@vcu.edu> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/05/2018 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > Del, > > Glad to here there should be no issue in upgrading the clients to 7.1.8 or > 8.1.2 before the servers are upgraded. > > So, what can I expect when I upgrade the servers to 7.1.8 / 8.1.2/4 as for > the certificates? I realize I have to run the utility to convert the > server cert.kdb file to cert256.arm (eventhough I have never used SSL on > any of my TSM servers, the file exists and I had this problem on my test > server when I upgraded it to 8.1.3). > > Will the clients that upgraded to >=7.1.8 properly/automatically exchange > the required certs once the client realizes it is talking to a server with > the right "language" or will that be a manual thing? As most folks, I plan > to keep SESSIONSECURITY TRANSITIONAL as long as possible, easing into it as > gradually as possible. > > But if upgrading to >=7.1.8 is going to require manual updates to get the > certs right, I would rather hold off. Right now it is manageable. > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi Zoltan, > > > > It's fine to upgrade the clients first... you won't see warnings because > > the clients know they are talking to a back-level server and will speak > > the right "language". The best practice is to upgrade the servers first so > > all the certificates are there and it will make sure the security issues > > are addressed, but it is not required. > > > > We understand the gap with regards to the web interface. We are evaluating > > possible ways forward for that. > > > > > > Del > > > > -------- > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > > 09:16:25 AM: > > > > > From: Zoltan Forray <zfor...@vcu.edu> > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Date: 01/04/2018 09:17 AM > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > > > Del, > > > > > > Thanks for the info. Some of it is useful and I have seen most of it. > > > > > > I have a question about the reverse i.e. clients who have upgraded to > > > 8.1.2+ and 7.1.8.There was this dire warning in the 8.1.2 upgrade > > docs > > > about upgrading your servers before installing 8.1.2 clients or your > > > backups would fail. I downloaded all of the latest clients and > > eventhough > > > I sent an email to my co-workers about *NOT* using 8.1.2/7.1.8, some > > > ignored me and installed 8.1.2 (and then 7.1.8) with no issues I am > > aware > > > of (remember all of my servers are RHEL 7.1.7.300). > > > > > > At what point do these dire warnings kick-in? Is it safe to deploy > > 7.1.8 / > > > 8.1.2 (holding off on 8.1.4) throughout my complex without fears of > > > mass-destruction? > > > > > > Plus the issue of the "BA web interface" going away (if I understand > > this > > > correctly) is a major problem for us. Unless of course I am completely > > > misunderstanding and it is only the web Administrator interface (which > > we > > > don't use). > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Here are a few links that might help: > > > > > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > > > > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > > > > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Del > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > > > >
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Del, Glad to here there should be no issue in upgrading the clients to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the servers are upgraded. So, what can I expect when I upgrade the servers to 7.1.8 / 8.1.2/4 as for the certificates? I realize I have to run the utility to convert the server cert.kdb file to cert256.arm (eventhough I have never used SSL on any of my TSM servers, the file exists and I had this problem on my test server when I upgraded it to 8.1.3). Will the clients that upgraded to >=7.1.8 properly/automatically exchange the required certs once the client realizes it is talking to a server with the right "language" or will that be a manual thing? As most folks, I plan to keep SESSIONSECURITY TRANSITIONAL as long as possible, easing into it as gradually as possible. But if upgrading to >=7.1.8 is going to require manual updates to get the certs right, I would rather hold off. Right now it is manageable. On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Zoltan, > > It's fine to upgrade the clients first... you won't see warnings because > the clients know they are talking to a back-level server and will speak > the right "language". The best practice is to upgrade the servers first so > all the certificates are there and it will make sure the security issues > are addressed, but it is not required. > > We understand the gap with regards to the web interface. We are evaluating > possible ways forward for that. > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 09:16:25 AM: > > > From: Zoltan Forray <zfor...@vcu.edu> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 09:17 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > Del, > > > > Thanks for the info. Some of it is useful and I have seen most of it. > > > > I have a question about the reverse i.e. clients who have upgraded to > > 8.1.2+ and 7.1.8.There was this dire warning in the 8.1.2 upgrade > docs > > about upgrading your servers before installing 8.1.2 clients or your > > backups would fail. I downloaded all of the latest clients and > eventhough > > I sent an email to my co-workers about *NOT* using 8.1.2/7.1.8, some > > ignored me and installed 8.1.2 (and then 7.1.8) with no issues I am > aware > > of (remember all of my servers are RHEL 7.1.7.300). > > > > At what point do these dire warnings kick-in? Is it safe to deploy > 7.1.8 / > > 8.1.2 (holding off on 8.1.4) throughout my complex without fears of > > mass-destruction? > > > > Plus the issue of the "BA web interface" going away (if I understand > this > > correctly) is a major problem for us. Unless of course I am completely > > misunderstanding and it is only the web Administrator interface (which > we > > don't use). > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Here are a few links that might help: > > > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > > > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > > > > > > > > > Del > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > > > 03:37:53 AM: > > > > > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end > only) > > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to > > > > do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > > > level. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Eric van Loon > > > > Air France/KLM Storage Enginee
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Hi Zoltan, It's fine to upgrade the clients first... you won't see warnings because the clients know they are talking to a back-level server and will speak the right "language". The best practice is to upgrade the servers first so all the certificates are there and it will make sure the security issues are addressed, but it is not required. We understand the gap with regards to the web interface. We are evaluating possible ways forward for that. Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 09:16:25 AM: > From: Zoltan Forray <zfor...@vcu.edu> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/04/2018 09:17 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > Del, > > Thanks for the info. Some of it is useful and I have seen most of it. > > I have a question about the reverse i.e. clients who have upgraded to > 8.1.2+ and 7.1.8.There was this dire warning in the 8.1.2 upgrade docs > about upgrading your servers before installing 8.1.2 clients or your > backups would fail. I downloaded all of the latest clients and eventhough > I sent an email to my co-workers about *NOT* using 8.1.2/7.1.8, some > ignored me and installed 8.1.2 (and then 7.1.8) with no issues I am aware > of (remember all of my servers are RHEL 7.1.7.300). > > At what point do these dire warnings kick-in? Is it safe to deploy 7.1.8 / > 8.1.2 (holding off on 8.1.4) throughout my complex without fears of > mass-destruction? > > Plus the issue of the "BA web interface" going away (if I understand this > correctly) is a major problem for us. Unless of course I am completely > misunderstanding and it is only the web Administrator interface (which we > don't use). > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Here are a few links that might help: > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > > > > > Del > > > > > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > > 03:37:53 AM: > > > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to > > > do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > > level. > > > Kind regards, > > > Eric van Loon > > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > > > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > > > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > > > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > > > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > > > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > > > > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > > > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS > > > if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > > > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > > > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > > > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's > > > possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, > > > you'll have to backtrack
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
HI Eric, This is intentional. See my previous reply. Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 09:44:42 AM: > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/04/2018 09:46 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > In fact a q server f=d shows Session Security: Transitional, but > each time I log on to the server using the admin command line, my > admin userid is getting updated from transitional to strict! Upd > admin transitional works but as soon as I log on it's being switched > back to Strict. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > Behalf Of Zoltan Forray > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 15:03 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > >>>admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this should be the > > default...) and now I could start a session successful. > > > > I concur. I remember having this same problem when I upgraded my > test server to 8.1.3 eventhough the docs say "transitional" is the default. > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM < > eric-van.l...@klm.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Del, > > > Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and > > > noticed that I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: > > > > > > ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - > > > client is down-level with this server version. > > > > > > So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: > > > > > > On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. > > > On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to > > > KLM35757 for session 24. > > > > > > So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this > > > should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. > > > I tried the same admin account on another TSM client and again On the > > > client > > > side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. A q admin f=d showed > > > that sessionsecurity was again set to strict! I'm lost... > > > Kind regards, > > > Eric van Loon > > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > > > Of Del Hoobler > > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > > > Here are a few links that might help: > > > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > > > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > > > > > > > > > Del > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > > > 03:37:53 AM: > > > > > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end > > > > only) Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > > > > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > > > level. > > > > Kind regards, > > >
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
In fact a q server f=d shows Session Security: Transitional, but each time I log on to the server using the admin command line, my admin userid is getting updated from transitional to strict! Upd admin transitional works but as soon as I log on it's being switched back to Strict. Kind regards, Eric van Loon Air France/KLM Storage Engineering -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 15:03 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) >>>admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. I concur. I remember having this same problem when I upgraded my test server to 8.1.3 eventhough the docs say "transitional" is the default. On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM < eric-van.l...@klm.com> wrote: > Hi Del, > Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and > noticed that I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: > > ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - > client is down-level with this server version. > > So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: > > On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. > On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to > KLM35757 for session 24. > > So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this > should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. > I tried the same admin account on another TSM client and again On the > client > side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. A q admin f=d showed > that sessionsecurity was again set to strict! I'm lost... > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > Of Del Hoobler > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Here are a few links that might help: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 03:37:53 AM: > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end > > only) Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > level. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end > > only) > > > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS > > if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's > > possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, > > you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL > > k
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Hi Eric, Once you connect with a "trusted" client and the certificate is distributed, the mode is set to back to STRICT. The idea is that userid/adminid now has the certificate, it must supply it when you reconnect to verify you are who you say you are. You could reset the admin back to TRANSITIONAL and do the same thing for the second machine. Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 08:42:50 AM: > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/04/2018 08:46 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > Hi Del, > Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and > noticed that I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: > > ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - > client is down-level with this server version. > > So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: > > On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. > On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to > KLM35757 for session 24. > > So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this > should be the default...) and now I could start a session > successful. I tried the same admin account on another TSM client and > again On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL > protocol. A q admin f=d showed that sessionsecurity was again set to > strict! I'm lost... > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > Behalf Of Del Hoobler > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Here are a few links that might help: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.2/ > srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 03:37:53 AM: > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > level. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > > Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if > > we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible > > that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have > > to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all > > client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be > > avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Content preview: Yeah, now that you mention it, we ran into this as well. It wasn't so serious for us since we already had one of our admin systems upgraded to 7.1.8, but it was kind of surprising for the folks that still used the down-level client. Fortunately there were no dependencies that prevented us from going to the 7.1.8 client everywhere. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1515075698 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.27:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 13112 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.50 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.50 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests=BSF_RULE7568M X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46540 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description -- -- 0.50 BSF_RULE7568M Custom Rule 7568M Yeah, now that you mention it, we ran into this as well. It wasn't so serious for us since we already had one of our admin systems upgraded to 7.1.8, but it was kind of surprising for the folks that still used the down-level client. Fortunately there were no dependencies that prevented us from going to the 7.1.8 client everywhere. It seems that the BA client was more tolerant of the SSL changes than the admin client, though; I don't remember any client backup problems after the server upgrade. On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:42:50PM +, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM wrote: > Hi Del, > Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and noticed that > I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: > > ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - client > is down-level with this server version. > > So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: > > On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. > On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to KLM35757 for > session 24. > > So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this should > be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. I tried the > same admin account on another TSM client and again On the client side: > ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. A q admin f=d showed that > sessionsecurity was again set to strict! I'm lost... > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del > Hoobler > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Here are a few links that might help: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 03:37:53 AM: > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > level. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > > Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end o
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Del, Thanks for the info. Some of it is useful and I have seen most of it. I have a question about the reverse i.e. clients who have upgraded to 8.1.2+ and 7.1.8.There was this dire warning in the 8.1.2 upgrade docs about upgrading your servers before installing 8.1.2 clients or your backups would fail. I downloaded all of the latest clients and eventhough I sent an email to my co-workers about *NOT* using 8.1.2/7.1.8, some ignored me and installed 8.1.2 (and then 7.1.8) with no issues I am aware of (remember all of my servers are RHEL 7.1.7.300). At what point do these dire warnings kick-in? Is it safe to deploy 7.1.8 / 8.1.2 (holding off on 8.1.4) throughout my complex without fears of mass-destruction? Plus the issue of the "BA web interface" going away (if I understand this correctly) is a major problem for us. Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding and it is only the web Administrator interface (which we don't use). On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Del Hoobler <hoob...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Here are a few links that might help: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 03:37:53 AM: > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to > > do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > level. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS > > if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's > > possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, > > you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL > > keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding > > nightmare can be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then > > manage key distribution among clients more gracefully, as they > > upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, > > please chime in. > > > > This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. > > > > Roger Deschner > > University of Illinois at Chicago > > "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." > > > > From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set > > SESSIONSECURITY > > to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you > > should be fine; > > IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our > servers to > > v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] > > > > Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) > > &g
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
>>>admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. I concur. I remember having this same problem when I upgraded my test server to 8.1.3 eventhough the docs say "transitional" is the default. On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM < eric-van.l...@klm.com> wrote: > Hi Del, > Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and noticed > that I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: > > ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - > client is down-level with this server version. > > So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: > > On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. > On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to KLM35757 > for session 24. > > So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this > should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. I > tried the same admin account on another TSM client and again On the client > side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. A q admin f=d showed that > sessionsecurity was again set to strict! I'm lost... > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of > Del Hoobler > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Here are a few links that might help: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1. > 2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 > > > > Del > > > > > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 > 03:37:53 AM: > > > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended > level. > > Kind regards, > > Eric van Loon > > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > > Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if > > we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible > > that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have > > to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all > > client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be > > avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key > > distribution among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 > > one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, please chime in. > > > > This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. > > > > Roger Deschner > > University of Illinois at Chicago > > "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." > > > > From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Hi Del, Well, not really... I'm currently installing a 7.1.8 server and noticed that I could no longer use a 7.1.7 admin commandline: ANR0404W Session 22 for administrator ADMIN (Linux x86-64) refused - client is down-level with this server version. So I upgraded it to 7.1.8, but it was still not working: On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. On the server side: ANR3335W Unable to distribute certificate to KLM35757 for session 24. So I updated my admin to sessionsecurity=transitional (strange, this should be the default...) and now I could start a session successful. I tried the same admin account on another TSM client and again On the client side: ANS1592E Failed to initialize SSL protocol. A q admin f=d showed that sessionsecurity was again set to strict! I'm lost... Kind regards, Eric van Loon Air France/KLM Storage Engineering -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Del Hoobler Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Here are a few links that might help: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 03:37:53 AM: > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. > Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended level. > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if > we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible > that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have > to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all > client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be > avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key > distribution among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 > one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, please chime in. > > This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. > > Roger Deschner > University of Illinois at Chicago > "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." > > From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set > SESSIONSECURITY > to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you > should be fine; > IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to > v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] > > Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) > > pts rule name description > -- > -- > 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) > -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches hando
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Here are a few links that might help: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSEQVQ_8.1.2/srv.install/r_srv_knowsec-aix.html http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22004844 Del "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 03:37:53 AM: > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Date: 01/04/2018 03:40 AM > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU> > > I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to > do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on > several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in > here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit > about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade > without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended level. > Kind regards, > Eric van Loon > Air France/KLM Storage Engineering > > -Original Message- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. > There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what > happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in > testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if > you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. > > We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough > testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS > if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that > having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of > upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are > the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's > possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, > you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL > keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding > nightmare can be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then > manage key distribution among clients more gracefully, as they > upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, > please chime in. > > This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. > > Roger Deschner > University of Illinois at Chicago > "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." > > From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 > Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) > > Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set > SESSIONSECURITY > to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you > should be fine; > IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to > v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] > > Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) > > pts rule name description > -- > -- > 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) > -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay > domain > X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] > X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 > X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 > X-Barracuda-URL: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url? > u=https-3A__148.100.49. > 28-3A443_cgi-2Dmod_mark.cgi=DwIFAg=jf_iaSHvJObTbx- > siA1ZOg=0hq2JX5c3TEZNriHEs7Zf7HrkY2fNtONOrEOM8Txvk8=529NKbiDtCmhOp63H3nZmM0Pnv- > V1fHyDWeSXJ-s-1I=wL7qg-bC6229Rs0MHKXxo50WnAcsl_tyXg8N0DW_oQA= > X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu > X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 > X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 > X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 > X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of > TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= > X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 > Rule breakdown below > pts rule name description > -- > -- > > I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSION
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
I agree with you about the lack of completely clear information. I have a test server that I upgraded to 8.1.3 and with the default SESSIONSECURITY value we had mixed and inconsistent results with the few clients I tested. We also had to go through the key conversion process even though (IIRC) docs said we shouldn't have to since we never used encryption or SSL on any server (except for the lone LM server that creates off-site tapes which are encrypted). And the whole issue of the web interface going away is really confusing and will cause us issues since we have processes that require the web interface to access node backups (no way around it). We haven't had a chance to test what will happen in that scenario due to lack of people time and too many active projects. Zoltan Forray Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator VMware Administrator Xymon Administrator VCU Computer Center zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit https://phishing.vcu.edu On Jan 4, 2018 3:39 AM, "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" < eric-van.l...@klm.com> wrote: I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended level. Kind regards, Eric van Loon Air France/KLM Storage Engineering -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key distribution among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, please chime in. This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description -- -- I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY t
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
I too read all the previous posts, but I still don't know what to do. Your mail also indicates that your upgrade planning is based on several assumptions and I think it is really time for IBM to jump in here. I think someone from development should explain a little bit about the new security design and tell us how we should upgrade without impact. Which components in which order to which recommended level. Kind regards, Eric van Loon Air France/KLM Storage Engineering -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key distribution among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, please chime in. This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description -- -- I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. That said, v7.1.8 was a huge change so I would test it if possible first. On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by > upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get > upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not > realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT > backward compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really > affect me since we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now). > > > *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT* > > includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients that are > compatible with, and currently supported with, IBM Spectrum Protect > Servers and Storage Agents. > *IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Client Version* > *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Server and Storage Agent Versions* > 8.1.2 > 8.1, 7.1 > 8.1.0 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 7.1.8 > 8.1, 7.1 > 7.1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.4 1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 &g
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. There are a bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what happens to administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in testing, because you can permanently disable your own admin ID if you're not careful. We also know there will be library sharing gotchas. We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough testing. We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if we upgrade the servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that having 7.1.8 clients around will greatly complicate the process of upgrading the servers, especially if any of those 7.1.8 clients are the desktop workstations used by you and your coworkers. It's possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to 7.1.8, you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key distribution among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm wrong about any of this, please chime in. This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago "I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere." From: Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19 Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only) Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description -- -- I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. That said, v7.1.8 was a huge change so I would test it if possible first. On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by > upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get > upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not > realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT backward > compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really affect me since > we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now). > > > *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT* > > includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients > that are compatible with, and currently supported with, > IBM Spectrum Protect Servers and Storage Agents. > *IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Client Version* > *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Server and Storage Agent Versions* > 8.1.2 > 8.1, 7.1 > 8.1.0 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 7.1.8 > 8.1, 7.1 > 7.1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.4 1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.3 1, 2 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we > > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 > > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 > > > > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but > > obviously you won't get support. > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > > > Our TSM stor
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
I too am looking to upgrade all of my servers from 7.1.7.300, soon. I went through the documents in your link (IBM - one of them 404's). My first concern would be upgrading the offsite replica server. While there is documentation about library manager/client server levels/compatibility (pretty sure need to do LM servers first), does the new forced security require SSL/TLS for server-to-server communications? If I upgrade/update the replica server to 7.1.8, will that kill it's communication with the 5-other 7.1.7.3 servers that aren't talking SSL/TLS? On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompsonwrote: > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 > > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but > obviously you won't get support. > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before > this > > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start > using > > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is > > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on > > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you > > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it > seems > > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. > > > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at > > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our > current > > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 > > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. > > > > Tom > > -- > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > -- University of Washington School of Medicine > -- *Zoltan Forray* Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator Xymon Monitor Administrator VMware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services www.ucc.vcu.edu zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://phishing.vcu.edu/
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRALSPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description -- -- I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. That said, v7.1.8 was a huge change so I would test it if possible first. On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by > upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get > upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not > realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT backward > compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really affect me since > we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now). > > > *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT* > > includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients > that are compatible with, and currently supported with, > IBM Spectrum Protect Servers and Storage Agents. > *IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Client Version* > *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Server and Storage Agent Versions* > 8.1.2 > 8.1, 7.1 > 8.1.0 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 7.1.8 > 8.1, 7.1 > 7.1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.4 1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.3 1, 2 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompson> wrote: > > > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we > > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 > > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 > > > > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but > > obviously you won't get support. > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > > > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before > > this > > > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start > > using > > > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is > > > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on > > > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you > > > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it > > seems > > > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. > > > > > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at > > > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our > > current > > > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 > > > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. > > > > > > Tom > > > > -- > > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > > -- University of Washington School of Medicine > > -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT backward compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really affect me since we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now). *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT* includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients that are compatible with, and currently supported with, IBM Spectrum Protect Servers and Storage Agents. *IBM Spectrum Protect* *Client Version* *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect* *Server and Storage Agent Versions* 8.1.2 8.1, 7.1 8.1.0 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 7.1.8 8.1, 7.1 7.1 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 6.4 1 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 6.3 1, 2 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompsonwrote: > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 > > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but > obviously you won't get support. > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before > this > > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start > using > > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is > > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on > > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you > > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it > seems > > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. > > > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at > > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our > current > > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 > > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. > > > > Tom > > -- > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > -- University of Washington School of Medicine >
Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but obviously you won't get support. On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before this > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start using > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it seems > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our current > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. > > Tom -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine
Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before this new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start using the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it seems that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our current standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. Tom