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_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: 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 +0000, 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 AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Del Hoobler
> Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 13:45
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT 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 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
> > ********************************************************
> >
> ********************************************************
> For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
> http://www.klm.com. 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
> ********************************************************
--
-- 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
|
