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@VM.MARIST.EDU> wrote on 01/04/2018 03:37:53 AM: > From: "Loon, Eric van (ITOPT3) - KLM" <eric-van.l...@klm.com> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.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@VM.MARIST.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@VM.MARIST.EDU] On > Behalf Of Deschner, Roger Douglas > Sent: donderdag 4 januari 2018 0:14 > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.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 <skyl...@u.washington.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 > > <skyl...@u.washington.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 (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > > > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > > > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > > > -- University of Washington School of Medicine > > > > > -- > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.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 > ******************************************************** >
