Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 22614 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Some clients not reporting back the status of scheduled scan

Rheden

Hi,

In our environment we have scheduled scans (full scan) every week, but in one group we have 3 servers. One of those servers is reporting when it has finished it scheduled scan, the other 2 do not.

So I checked the policy just in case, but it says it scheduled. Also on the machines, Windows added a scheduled scan task. When I run the task manually, it runs and is successfully. But it still reports that the last successful (scheduled) scan was about 2 months ago.

I tried to reinstall the client on those two servers, but no luck :|

Anyone know why just these two servers or not reporting the scheduled scan back? "The last message received from computer" is also very current, reported an hour ago, so no issues there..

:48646


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hello ruckus,

    I'm thinking exclusions

    sly - but not even close, so definitely no cigar :smileywink:. First of all, even the local GUI does not allow individual exclusions for a scan (but as you can select the items to scan you don't need them). In order to use it from the console you'd have to reconfigure the exclusions after one scan has finished and before the next one starts.

    While one could limit the scope this way I don't recommend advise against it. The exclusion settings are global (the configuration page in local GUI even gives an explicit Warning). The On-Demand exclusions can be pretty dangerous. Unfortunately the console GUI is rather vague (one might even say, misleading) about this topic. Not only is Extensions and Exclusions ... somewhat inappropriately placed in the Scheduled scanning frame, the explaining text isn't prefixed with a Warning: and unobtrusively states: [...] also affect the "Full system-scan" and default on-demand scans [...]. If you are unsure what this means, try it out. Actually it affects all scans (i.e. also the ones created locally, and did I mention right-click scan?). Of course, the exclusions can be overridden locally - but you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

    I'm opposed to "lightheaded" use of exclusions because of their global scope and their potential unwanted effects - especially as their presence is not obvious.

    [@ruckus: That's no criticism - BTW: you're doing an excellent job, you're very committed and your "multimedia guides" are great.]

    Christian

    :48746
Reply
  • 0

    Hello ruckus,

    I'm thinking exclusions

    sly - but not even close, so definitely no cigar :smileywink:. First of all, even the local GUI does not allow individual exclusions for a scan (but as you can select the items to scan you don't need them). In order to use it from the console you'd have to reconfigure the exclusions after one scan has finished and before the next one starts.

    While one could limit the scope this way I don't recommend advise against it. The exclusion settings are global (the configuration page in local GUI even gives an explicit Warning). The On-Demand exclusions can be pretty dangerous. Unfortunately the console GUI is rather vague (one might even say, misleading) about this topic. Not only is Extensions and Exclusions ... somewhat inappropriately placed in the Scheduled scanning frame, the explaining text isn't prefixed with a Warning: and unobtrusively states: [...] also affect the "Full system-scan" and default on-demand scans [...]. If you are unsure what this means, try it out. Actually it affects all scans (i.e. also the ones created locally, and did I mention right-click scan?). Of course, the exclusions can be overridden locally - but you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

    I'm opposed to "lightheaded" use of exclusions because of their global scope and their potential unwanted effects - especially as their presence is not obvious.

    [@ruckus: That's no criticism - BTW: you're doing an excellent job, you're very committed and your "multimedia guides" are great.]

    Christian

    :48746
Children
No Data