Network Access Control

Hello,

We are running SEP MR4 MP1a along with SNAC and have had some issues (machine runs out of resources and SEP crashes) on Thin Clients running XP embedded.

My question is: How do I disable SNAC from running on all the VM's running in the same OU? I already disabled the policy, but I want to know if, via the console, I can disable/remove the SNAC service from the client. We are running out of possible solutions for the errors were seeing and stopping the SNAC service "seems" to help.

If you want all the details, here are the errors were getting in no particular order.

sylinkres.dll could not be found
Runtime error! R6025 Pure Function Call
SMC.exe Application Error : The instruction at 0x00000000 referenced memory at 0x00000000 the memory could not be read.
SMCGUI.exe - The exception unknown software exception (0x40000015) occured in the application at location 0x6aablca8

All random errors after the vm has been up for ~15-24 hours.

Thanks for any thoughts,

-Mike

P.S. Running SEP embedded is not an option for us.

There was a reported case that had the same errors that you are experiencing. Are you running Spector 360 monitoring software on these images?

If so, the solution is to

create an exception in Spector 360 for SMC.exe and SMCGUI.exe
OR
Install the latest patches from Spector360 (www.spector360.com).

Thomas

 Once you have added SNAC license on SEPM console all the client will have SNAC component enable and it cannot be removed from specific group or client.
SNAC is al rule base so with no policy it is as good as disabled.

Looking at the above error messages you are getting definitely there will be a solution/workaround available with Support.

@Cycletech, no were not running Spector 360, but thank you for the suggestion.

@Vikram, thanks for the information on my original question. As much as I'd like to agree, even without a policy (or being set to "never do HI checking" or  "disabling the policy" ) , it (SNAC) still runs in memory, it still has hooks into the OS and it still chatters with the parent server. Because of these reasons, I'm not confident that it's not part of the problem.

Again, thank you both for your suggestions and insight. I will press on.

-Mike