toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13523 discussions

Re: Virus Scanning
by Seth Moskowitz 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

In my environment there are thousands of windows machines and although they have virus software there are always some cracks so I take the position that if you afford to do it and there is enough windows data to merit it then you should have virus protection on the Filers. My company already has Symantec NAV internally throughout the oganization as well as Mcaffee products on all the firewalls and e-mail servers. Given that Norton was here and they were the first to come out with a working product for the Filers I looked at it. It worked ok and has gotten better in time. 2 years ago I fully deployed Carrier Scan 2.0 which is now SAVSE 4.x. There have been some issues but during migrations from older Novell/NT servers to the Filers I have caught and cleaned 100's of viruses, especially from Novell servers. In the case of one migration from a merging companies server we caught 1400 viruses in one migration. Granted that isn't the norm but it happens. The set up I have built is basically that each filer has a dedicated 1GB network connection for Admin. Admin in this case includes snap mirror and virus scanning. Each Filer also has 2 virus scanning serves dedicated to it each with a 1GB network connection. Moving forward with the newer symantec version I will be pooling all of these scanning servers to basically create a scanning farm. I should mention this solution might be overkill for some but on our home server filers we have 3000+ clients each. We do not have scanning on our NFS only Filers but have over 50TB of data that is being scanned. Lastly since we already have a Symantec platform I leveraged that environment using the LiveUpdate features of Symantec so my virus definitions are automatically updated as our virus people stress test new definitions and roll them out to our LiveUpdate server(s). >From: Geoff Hardin <geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com> >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: Virus Scanning >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:44:53 -0600 > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as >an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. >Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out >there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my >NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our >filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm >asking for your input. > >1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > >2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > >Thanks for any and all input. > >Geoff Hardin >UNIX System Administrator >geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com >This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

maxdir size on ontap 6.2 and higher
by kyle 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Seems there is a limit of 64k. This is keeping me from upgrading. I currently use 6.1R1 and just tried upgrading one of my lab netapps and see I cant go higher than 64k for maxdir size. Is there some workaround?

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning
by Mike Sphar 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

What situation are you still seeing virus files deposited? The only situations I'm aware of would be if a client placed the file there via NFS, then no scan takes place, or if a virus-infected file is embedded deep in an archive such as a zip or tar file. In the first case though, when a windows client attempts to read the file, I believe the virus scan will still take place, so it should get caught then. I'm not sure what solution there is to a deeply embedded virus. Most systems (server or desktop) simply can't handle the performance hit of doing deep scans of every zip file. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: David Papas [mailto:david.papas@newisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

2 1

RE: Virus Scanning
by Ed Sanborn 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

One other consideration is the issue of new viruses. Viruses that do not yet have a fix posted in an antivirus software's definitions will not yet detect this new virus. Whether through email, web browsers, ftp download, etc, it can find it's way on the NetApp (especially if you are using the NetApp for home directories). Now if this new virus infects .exe's or other heavily shared files the virus can spread like wild-fire. Once the new virus fix is found and the new definition is posted and applied then it will be auto-detected just fine but by then the damage is done. The NetApp may already have a kagillion infected files. Although scanning does take a long time depending on how large your filesystems are I try to scan the NetApp atleast once a month. It will stop the spread of brand new viruses but atleast once the definition is in place atleast you'll find that you were infected and can actually clean-up. Of course, even if you we're hit and the PC client's have the new def's then whenever they hit one of the bad files they would sound the alarm too but I try to be proactive, atleast a bit, so that if files need to be restored I can get a jump on it before users complain. Also, another suggestion is to try and dissuade folks from placing executables of any nature on the fileserver. That is, if IT is using the server to place CD copies of MS-Office or other apps in order to more easily load software over the net try to not do this. The .exe files are too easily infected and then it is easy to spread the virus to other's unwittingly. The Klez virus nailed us here until I had a chance to reinstall our old, decrepit McAfee virus server. By the time I fixed the server and reinstalled client software our NetApp was soaked with viruses mostly .exe files.... -Ed -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mike.sphar@Remedy.COM] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:37 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning What situation are you still seeing virus files deposited? The only situations I'm aware of would be if a client placed the file there via NFS, then no scan takes place, or if a virus-infected file is embedded deep in an archive such as a zip or tar file. In the first case though, when a windows client attempts to read the file, I believe the virus scan will still take place, so it should get caught then. I'm not sure what solution there is to a deeply embedded virus. Most systems (server or desktop) simply can't handle the performance hit of doing deep scans of every zip file. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: David Papas [mailto:david.papas@newisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:13 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Virus Scanning I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

1 0

RE: Virus Scanning
by Mike Sphar 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I think it depends on how close to 100% you can guarantee that your windows clients are virus free. Depending on permissions on your shares and files, all it could take is one infected windows machine in your entire network to infect thousands of files on your filer. We've had this happen probably at least a half-dozen times. We just have way too many windows machines in our network: desktop machines, laptops that people take home and hook up to their home networks, and often the worst of all lab machines since we often can't fully control how those machines are set up. We have probably hundreds of machines running IIS for web development, trying to keep all of them patched is so far an extremely difficult job. You can block viruses through your mail gateway, but are you blocking employees from accessing hotmail or msn or any other web-based mail? Because viruses can easily sneak into your network from there. Are you blocking/filtering ftp? Because that's another way. Not to mention the various P2P file sharing services. We have Norton corporate edition deployed throughout most of our desktop clients, which in theory should be keeping all the clients up-to-date, but we find far too often that the automated client updates aren't happening, or that the client AV software is not running for some reason, etc. From what I've heard from people using other vendors like Symantec and Mcafee in big enterprise environments, they can be plagued with similar problems as well. We're still working on deploying the Netapp AV solution from Trend (budgeting and planning can sometime take *way* too long) but when we deployed a trial version we were very impressed by the efficiency with which it stopped virus infections onto the file server. We started getting notices of attempted virus infections within minutes of activating the software. For a long time when people complained about viruses on the file server, I would take the position that if we just prevented virus infections on the client side there would be no problem. But I've come to accept that it is just virtually impossible to guarantee that you can keep every client on your network up to date and virus-free at all times. And manually scanning the file server regularly just isn't feasible, given a very large file server it can be like painting the golden gate bridge, and with today's viruses it can only take a window of a few minutes to infect thousands of files. So, in summary, I'd say that virus protection on the file server is very important, unless you are *very* confident that your windows clients will always be virus free, or perhaps if your file server is very very restrictive permission-wise, such that an individual infected user can't do anything more than damage their own personal folders, *and* you have good frequent backups. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Remedy, a BMC Software Company -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Virus Scanning I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm asking for your input. 1. Which A/V software do you use a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp c) Trend Micro Server Protect d) other (are there any others?) 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. Thanks for any and all input. Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

1 0

RE: Virus Scanning
by David Papas 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I asked tis list recently regarding the "most popular software" part of your question. Trend seems to have been the winner in that poll, followed by Symantec. The reason I was inquiring is that, despite having file system and mail scanners everywhere else, I found it is still possible to deposit viruses on the filer. With a batch of infected files there, it is only a matter of time until an unprotected client connects and keeps spreading the love. -D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hardin [mailto:geoff.hardin@dalsemi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:45 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Virus Scanning > > > I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. > And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth > the time and > money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning > software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even > necessary. > I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses > that plague > my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a > problem on our > filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so > that's why I'm > asking for your input. > > 1. Which A/V software do you use > a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp > b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp > c) Trend Micro Server Protect > d) other (are there any others?) > > 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. > > > Thanks for any and all input. > > Geoff Hardin > UNIX System Administrator > geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com > This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue. > >

1 0

Virus Scanning
by Geoff Hardin 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

I was wondering what other admins were using for virus scanning. And as an aside, I really want to know whether it is worth the time and money. Basically, I've been asked to evaluate the virus scanning software out there for the filers, but I'm not really sure it's even necessary. I am a UNIX admin, so I typically don't see the viruses that plague my NT compatriots, but I don't believe we've really had a problem on our filers with CIFS shares. But maybe I'm just biased, so that's why I'm asking for your input. 1. Which A/V software do you use a) McAfee NetShield for Netapp b) Symantec Antivirus for Netapp c) Trend Micro Server Protect d) other (are there any others?) 2. Is it really necessary? Please explain your answer. Thanks for any and all input. Geoff Hardin UNIX System Administrator geoff.hardin(a)dalsemi.com This space is for rent in order to increase company revenue.

1 0

Will a DS14 shelf go in to a 900 deep rack?
by Clawson, Simon 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

Hi, I have two DS14 selves in an 800mm rack and the went in no trouble. Due to the massive tape library I use I need to switch over to a 900mm rack. Will the rail kit on the DS14 extend far enough back to go into a 900 deep rack? Simon Simon Clawson Mentor Graphics HDL Designer Series R&D Rivergate Systems Administrator London Road Berkshire RG14 2QB TEL: 01635 811409

1 0

PC�\�t�g��̔��I�I�I
by soft123 25 Mar '03

25 Mar '03

��Ãr�W�l�X�\�t�g�̔�! �l�C��i��W�߂ăZ�b�g�̔��܂� http://softsoft0.www2.dotnetplayground.com http://www.kurthost.net/softsoft/ http://www.online.in.th/softsoft/cd/ http://softsoft.flashmaster.ru http://www.duno.com/softsoft/index.html http://softsoft.erospace.pl/

1 0

[SUMMARY]Re: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI.
by Clarence Ngoh 24 Mar '03

24 Mar '03

Mark The way we have it structured is that the destination file is locked. This is where the users have access to the templates. The source file/location is never locked - this is where the developers update the templates to put to the destination. As one of the people suggested, perhaps the best way to approach this is to rsh to the filer, get the list of username's that have the file opened, then running through a regexp, and then terminating the user's cifs sessions. This job can be scheduled on the weekend or in the wee hours of the morning when we are certain that the file is not needed. -- Clarence. In a distant galaxy, far, far, away, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > Is the source file locked, or the destination? If it's the source, maybe > you could create a snapshot first, then copy from the snapshot, since > that wouldn't have any openers on it. That also has the advantage that > all the source files will be consistent in time. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clarence Ngoh [mailto:cngoh@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:31 PM > To: Stephane Bentebba; Ngoh, Clarence; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Terminating CIFS sessions via CLI. > > The use of cifs terminate [user] terminates all the files opened by the > user. > What I am looking is something that will go into more detail i.e. > terminating > only "certain" files opened by the user not all the files. > > The reason for this is I am writing a script that will copy global > templates > from the master templates directory to the templates folder. If the > file is > in used by the user, the copy job will not proceed. > > Thanks for your replies so far. > > -- Clarence. > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:49 pm, in a distant galaxy, Stephane Bentebba, > > wrote: > > filer cli provide the command : > > cifs terminate { machine | user } > > this let you terminate a cifs session for a user or a machine in > > particular, > > you can get users with the "cifs session" command : > > << > > genghis:~/tmp# rsh nac cifs sessions > > Server Registers as 'MYFILER' in group 'MYDOMAIN' > > Root volume language is not set. Use vol lang. > > Using the UNIX password database for authentication > > Comment: Filer FPS > > ======================================== > > PC (user) #shares #files > > AMACHINE (user1 - user1) 1 0 > > ANOTHERMACHINE (user2 - user2) > > 2 1 > > > > as you can see, I used this command throught rsh, so you could get > > users > > > throught rsh, make a script wich parse the ouput and launch several > > rsh > > > cifs terminate user/machine as you need. > > > > bye > > > > Ngoh, Clarence wrote: > > >Hi all > > > > > >I was wondering if any of you has attempted to kill a single or a set > > of > > > >CIFS sessions via CLI? After obtaining the files that are opened > > via > > > > cifs sessions on the filer, I wish to run a regexp through it and > > kill a > > > > set of opened files. > > > > > >Do you if there is a utility for Windows to do this via CLI or if > > there is > > > >an equivalent way of doing this via UNIX? The only method that I am > > > limited to so far is using MMC to list the appropriate open files > > and > > > > terminating it. > > > > > >TIA. > > > > > >-- Clarence. > > > > > > > > >************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ************** > > >This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and > > contains > > > > information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended > > > recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or > > > disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments > > from > > > > your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not > > > constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the > > Commonwealth > > > > Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. > > > **************************************************

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters