Endpoint Protection

Hello, we have recently deployed an app that is utilizing port 110 for polling purposes and we have identified an issue with SAV v10.1 blocking port 110. We have completely removed the Live Email Scan yet the SAV is still blocking port 110.  I found a reference to a known issue stating Internet E-mail Auto-Protect port changes are ignored in SAV v10.1 at the following link:

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/forums/sym-av-corp-v101-issue

I am wondering if anyone has identified a workaround to this issue. Is there a registry change that we could make or is this bug hard coded?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Looks like this cannot be changed in SAV 10. Have you contacted the vendor of the application to see if the port used for polling can be changed?

Thomas

Thank you very much for the response. Unfortunately the app in question is hard coded to utilize port 110. We were hoping there might be a patch type solution for SAV that would address the issue. we have hundreds of machines in the field that will need a work around of some type.

Is there an upgrade available to a newer version that would address this issue?

Version 10.2 is the current version available.

http://www.symantec.com/business/products/renewalsupgrades.jsp?pcid=pcat_security&pvid=805_1

I am not finding any documentation that says this is fixed in 10.2 though.
I recommend you place a call to Symantec and open a case.

Regards,
Thomas

 Hi rmartin,

You should update your AV to the latest version - 11.0
That may solve the problem

Regards,
Peter

As my title says I am not totally sure on this. However after doing some reading it appears that SAV 10.1 is hard coded to utilize port 110 as well. I don't know if there will be a workaround possible for this, but as cycletech said you should definetely call in and make a case. Sorry I couldn't be more help I just thought you might want to hear what I read about the port being hard coded.

Sorry for the conflict
Grant-

How are we coming along with your issue? Did we ever come up with a work around for the conflicting ports?

Thanks again for the suggestions and followup. We have made some system changes and are monitoring to evaluate the potential success.