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 <hoobler AT us.ibm DOT 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 AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018
> 03:37:53 AM:
>
> > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <Eric-van.Loon AT KLM DOT COM>
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT 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 AT VM.MARIST DOT 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 AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas
> > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT 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 <skylar2 AT U.WASHINGTON DOT 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_NEUTRAL SPF: 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&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> >
> siA1ZOg&r=0hq2JX5c3TEZNriHEs7Zf7HrkY2fNtONOrEOM8Txvk8&m=
> 529NKbiDtCmhOp63H3nZmM0Pnv-
> > V1fHyDWeSXJ-s-1I&s=wL7qg-bC6229Rs0MHKXxo50WnAcsl_tyXg8N0DW_oQA&e=
> > 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
> > > <skylar2 AT u.washington DOT 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 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 (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> > > > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> > > > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> > > > -- University of Washington School of Medicine
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> > -- University of Washington School of Medicine
> > ********************************************************
> > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> > u=http-3A__www.klm.com&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> >
> siA1ZOg&r=0hq2JX5c3TEZNriHEs7Zf7HrkY2fNtONOrEOM8Txvk8&m=
> 529NKbiDtCmhOp63H3nZmM0Pnv-
> > V1fHyDWeSXJ-s-1I&s=XYtqCkcBf_H0a_PotsgLeuvoQb1r1IZarPTXr5rPT6s&e=.
> > This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and
> > privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not
> > the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any
> > attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any
> > other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly
> > prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by
> > error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and
> > delete this message.
> >
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/
> > or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete
> > transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for
> > any delay in receipt.
> > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal
> > Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with
> > registered number 33014286
> > ********************************************************
> >
>
--
*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
zforray AT vcu DOT 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/
|
