SMC taking up CPU with SEP and CheckPoint SecureClient
Gentlemen,
Wondering if anyone seen the issue we've been having in our rollout of SEP:
- in about 5% of all machines with SEP installed, SMC.EXE is taking 50% CPU (on dual-core) or 100% CPU (on single core). This occurs after install is completed, machine is rebooted and LiveUpdate is run. System sometimes have a green dot, sometimes it doesn't, but in all cases under Help and Support -> Troubleshooting, server is listed as "Offline". It looks like machine gets SEP installed, connects to the server successfully, gets policies and sends logs and then loses connectivity for some reason. Interestingly, straight TCP connection to server works fine: I can resolve, ping or telnet to the server on SEP port just fine; it's SMC.EXE that loses its mind and can't connect to the server for some reason.
The fix so far, after many hours, is to uninstall CheckPoint SecureClient -> reboot -> reinstall CheckPoint SecureClient. Again, CheckPoin's SecureClient is not blocking SEP's traffic, it just looks like SMC.EXE and CheckPoint start to butt heads at some level, causing SMC.EXE not being able to communicate, and therefore peg CPU. I'm speculating, but I suspect that something happens during the installation that modifies either the order of network interfaces or changes the routes altogether, that throws SMC.EXE off completely. ROUTE PRINT looks OK and like I said above, direct TCP connections work fine, it's something with the way SMC.EXE tries to route traffic that is causing the issue, something that reinstalling VPN client fixes.
I searched the forum and Google and general and made sure there're no rogue adapters, no RIP network services, no orphaned Cisco VPN clients, etc. For the moment we have a fix, but I would like to hear an explanation of why such things may be happening from the old and wise here. We opened a ticket, too, but it will probably be few years before we'll get someone with half a brain via that route.
Thank you for your time.
Dimitri
Comments
Dimitri, I cannot remember
Dimitri, I cannot remember what version you are using. If you are on an old version, I would recommend upgrading to RU5. There have been issues in the past with SEP and Checkpoint working together. If you are running a newer version then you would be best served by placing a call to support.
Regards,
Thomas
Thomas, We are running
Thomas,
We are running 11.0.4202.75, which is the latest version this side of RU5. I'm hesitant to move to RU5 just yet, unless this or similar compatibility issue has been fixed in RU5. I didn't see this exact issue under release notes of RU5, can you confirm this?
Thanks as always.
DImitri
Dimitri, I am not seeing
Dimitri,
I am not seeing anything about a new Checkpoint fix. Are you using the latest version of Checkpoint? PM me your ticket number, and I will check on the case status.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thomas, We're using the
Thomas,
We're using the latest CheckPoint SecureClient, NGX R60 HFA2. I came across this fix in RU5 release notes, wondering if this may apply to our case:
SMC using entire CPU core and Symantec Endpoint
Protection-Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager
communication fails after migrating or installing the Symantec
Endpoint Protection client
Fix ID 174134
■ Symptom: After upgrading a Symantec Endpoint Protection client,
communication with the Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager fails because
the default gateway is not in the same subnet.
■ Solution: Enhanced the process to find the best route to the server after the
gateway IP address changes.
What do you think?
Are you using Office Mode?
If so, do an ipconfig /all and you'll see there is no default gateway listed for the SecureClient virtual NIC. That's normal for Office Mode.
Also make sure you have a Desktop Security rule that allows SEP access to the SEPM.
Ray
Ray, I'm aware of default
Ray,
I'm aware of default gateway not being there in regular VPN mode, I just thought this was the only close thing in RU5 release notes that looked like our issue.
CheckPoint client is not blocking traffic to SEPM, I would've seen it in the logs, and actual telnet to SEPM port works fine. It's the scm.exe (I suspect) loses its marbles and doesn't know how to reach the SEPM for whatever reason.
Dimitri
Would you like to reply?
Login or Register to post your comment.