New RA Server and Console (2.0.50)

Since there doesn't seem to be any announcment I'll post this.

2.0.50 is now out for both th RAS and RAC.

Here's the changelog of the RAS:


February 26, 2008 - Version 2.0.50

Fixed several problems related to
-http server
-updater
-several other minor bugs fixed

Configuration tree update in ESET Configuration Editor included
-Unix ESET Security section
-Default user interface values

Other upgrades
-ESET Remote Administrator Console/Server: firewall report added
-ESET Remote Administrator Console/Server: user column in CSV reports added
-ESET Configuration Editor: added xml format for saving files
-ESET Configuration Editor: personal firewall zone and rule setup upgrades (defualt rules management updated, configuration for Detection of modification network-aware applications added, configuration for Internet browsers added)

 

Exclusions push now.

But I can't figure out how to exclude file types. *.LOG (for example) doesn't seem to push. Or if I can use variables like %windir%? Any ideas?

The "Extensions" editors still seem wacky, and although it would seem that they only apply to "ThreatSense", they don't seem to push anyway.

Also the Splash-screen option still doesn't seem to push.

Plus I'm hoping the internal HTTP miror server keeps working (it's been good for about 4 hours so far <fingers crossed>).

Anyone else find anything fixed/added?

 

This works as long as you haven't tempered with the default settings. This is one of the "per-user" settings which can be different for each user. They are only applied if a particular registry value in the HKCU branch doesn't exist.

 

Configuration tree update in ESET Configuration Editor included
-Unix ESET Security section

How to tell ESET solutions for Unix to use ERA Server?

 

So if I've ever set the option one way or the other on the client, then it will never be set by a push after the fact?

What if it's never been toched at the client, will the push of that setting work? What happens if I set it one way, and then want to change it?

Perhaps there should be a "Force UI Settings" option?

 

Seems like a design flaw to me... any enterprise-level product should submit to altering its settings when they are overridden by a remote administration server. If the software won't obey the settings, then the software should be patched or re-engineered to match the expected behavior. A per-user setting allowance via the registry sounds like something that would be better applied to a personal piece of software, not a business-grade anti-virus product, especially when it's being remotely administered. In that situation, per-machine makes more sense (at least until ESET wants to integrate users into their management software as well -- and nobody wants that).

There simple isn't a purpose behind the client/server concept for administration when the client cannot be properly administered.

On a positive note, I'd like to thank ESET for fixing the problems that they have so far -- I look forward to seeing the rest of these issues taken care of soon.