Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help
New in the Rewards Catalog: Vouchers for "Symantec Technical Specialist" and "Symantec Certified Specialist" exams.

(SEPM) More variables for AV/AS Exclusions

Updated: 29 Jan 2010 | 34 comments
Jeremy Dundon's picture
85 Agree
0 Disagree
+85 85 Votes
Login to vote
Status: Reviewed

The variable for the current user's profile (Documents and Settings...) is currently unavailable when creating file and folder exclusions in Centralized Exception policies.

I know that this variable exists, as many programs (Internet Explorer, Firefox et all) use it; It stands to reason that exclusions may need to be made there.

Comments

Scuba Steve's picture
05
Aug
2009
2 Votes +2
Login to vote

why

why not just put in the full path?

Jeremy Dundon's picture
05
Aug
2009
6 Votes +6
Login to vote

This is why

If I put in an exception for docs and settings\scuba steve\local settings\fun program.exe and zoidberg logs on, AV will still trigger on docs and settings\zoidberg\local settings\fun program.exe.

Scuba Steve's picture
05
Aug
2009
4 Votes +4
Login to vote

I see now.

I see what you are saying now. Yes have the %userprofile% variable for our exclusions seems to be a pretty important option actually.

Scott_Alexander's picture
14
Aug
2009
2 Votes +2
Login to vote

I have worked with customers that require these exclusions

I think adding a %userprofile% variable is critical

AravindKM's picture
22
Aug
2009
3 Votes +3
Login to vote

Good idea. In fact this is an

Good idea. In fact this is an urgent requirement.

Please don't forget to mark your thread solved with whatever answer helped you : ) Thanks & Regards Aravind

gpickering's picture
08
Dec
2009
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Yes, this is a major

Yes, this is a major oversight in an enterpise environment.

Rafeeq's picture
17
Dec
2009
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Hi

Critical exclusion 

Please don't forget to mark your thread solved with whatever answer helped you : ) Rafeeq

HZS KV's picture
20
Jan
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Yes, the %userprofile% variable is necessary

very important for our company...

Scuba Steve's picture
21
Jan
2010
2 Votes +2
Login to vote

I now have a customer with

I now have a customer with 10's of thousands of users that he needs to make an exception for in all of their profiles. This needs to be changed immediately.

Where is product management with this.

Eradiani's picture
22
Jan
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

I have now 2 customers that

I have now 2 customers that really need exclusions for user's profile.  This is especially important on citrix/ESX/etc environments.

csgops's picture
27
Jan
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

This is also critical for us,

This is also critical for us, not just for centralized exceptions but also for firewall rules. Can we expect this anytime soon Symantec...?

csgops's picture
27
Jan
2010
2 Votes +2
Login to vote

This is also critical for us,

This is also critical for us, not just for centralized exceptions but also for firewall rules. Can we expect this anytime soon Symantec...?

Tech4RBH's picture
01
Feb
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

This is critical, have to get rid of SEP

I have been asked to move to another security product.  This is going to effect a March roll-out we have scheduled.  Symantec support has given no work arounds for me to centrally exclude a directory from the %userprofile%.  Without this exclusion for all workstations, we can not longer use SEP.

Kamil M's picture
28
Apr
2010
3 Votes +3
Login to vote

I don't understand how this

I don't understand how this gets overlooked. There should at least be a way of excluding a specific filename without specifying a full path. That way I could exclude certain files from being scanned from user profiles.

Pray4u's picture
03
May
2010
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

RU6a

Is there anything done regarding this in RU6a?

Mick2009's picture
13
May
2010
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Excerpt, Terminal Server and Citrix Best Practices White Paper

Adding some food for thought to this thread:

Symantec's white paper on Terminal Servers makes mention of profiles.  The full .pdf can be downloaded from http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/docid/2008112414453348 

"Some server administrators may wish to exclude their users roaming profiles and/or “My Documents” folders from being scanned for security risks. While this will improve performance, Symantec would not recommend this approach – in practice this is generally the location in which security risks are discovered."

Thanks and best regards,

Mick
 

With thanks and best regards,

Mick

Oivin's picture
09
Jun
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

This would be an important improvement

I have several customers on Citrix that would be happy for this, even though Symantec does not recommend it. For many customers, it would be important to exclude directories like m:\documents and settings\%username%\Application Data\<application>\<subfolder>.

So, I would not only want the %userprofile% variable, but also %user%.

 

Altair's picture
18
Jun
2010
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

We are also looking to

We are also looking to exclude subdirectories of the users' folders, namely My Documents.  This seems like it should be a simple fix and could be released with a patch.  Shouldn't it be up to the admins to decide what is secure for their network?

jlavin's picture
22
Jun
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

i totally agree with you

i totally agree with you Altair.  Give us the option!!!

remargable's picture
11
Aug
2010
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

And while they're at it, maybe Symantec could include some other filters they have built into their Backup Exec product?

for example:

%temp%  %wintemp%  %webtemp%  %recycled%  %currentuserprofile%  %currentusermydocs%

offroadaaron's picture
02
Feb
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Has anything happened about

Has anything happened about this? I need some exceptions for folders and files within roaming profiles.

Bored Silly's picture
21
Mar
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Extremely urgent for our hospital

The cache of a graphical medical application resides under the Application Data (XP) or AppData folder  (Win7) and we need to exclude it for some 15,000 users on 10,000 machines.  Either SEP needs to add the functionality for all Windows OS variables as Oivin mentioned above or at least add the Current User profile to the list.  I suggest allowing all Windows variables but will settle for Current User.  Thanks!

Bored Silly's picture
21
Mar
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

This thread is also pushing

This thread is also pushing for something similar but has less votes.  I'm voting for everything hoping to get the developers attention:

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/idea/centr...

captainflannel's picture
07
May
2011
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Need ability to exclude a user temp folder

We have an application which creates a folder structure inside each user temp folder.  We are experiencing performance issues and it is recommended by the applictation vendor to exclude this temp folder from all Virust Scanning.  How are we able to provide a solution?

Christoph Meier's picture
23
Aug
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Hi,I need custom prefix variable

Hi,

I use the version SEPM 12.1.671.4971

How to exclude a directory like "c:\documents and settings\%username%\temp" ?
How can i define custom prefix variable ?

Thanks and best regards, Christoph

Paul Murgatroyd's picture
25
Aug
2011
3 Votes +3
Login to vote

We are looking into what we

We are looking into what we can do here.

%USERPROFILE% is actually harder to implement than you would think, as it means every time the user logs on we would have to dynamically enumerate the user and create the exception.  Then, what happens when there is no user logged on, but scans and AV are still running?  This gets even more interesting when you understand that our drivers are kernel based, so we need user mode code to help us determine what %USERPROFILE% is.

We believe the better route forward here is to use wildcards in pathnames.  So, for example, C:\Users\*\Temp would match any user profile on the server or client, whether they are logged in our out.

thoughts?

Paul Murgatroyd
Principal Product Manager, Symantec Endpoint Protection
Endpoint twitter feed: http://twitter.com/symc_endpoint

w-d's picture
19
Oct
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Good suggestion, I agree with

Good suggestion, I agree with that.

What are the Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) versions released officially?
https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/articles/w...

Shawn T.'s picture
22
Sep
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I agree with wildcards.

Paul, I completely agree with the wildcards in exceptions. This would avoid the issue that %USERPROFILE% doesn't exist until a user logs in. There is even another idea post for wildcards. I'm not sure if supporting regular expression would be preferred, but certainly the use of * and ? would be most useful.

Joe FW's picture
27
Sep
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

SEP 12 Wildcard additon Critical

I thing Paul M's comments are correct about wildcards.

We will need this functionality or some other work around for the exception process in SEP 12.

I am not going to sugar coat it, deficiencies like this are the reason we only signed a 1 extension

with Symantec.

Dunkers's picture
27
Oct
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I've just started rolling out

I've just started rolling out the 12.1 client and it's picked up one app's DLL's as problem files.  The location is in the user profile's folders.  I have a few hundred people that this is affecting and can't add an exception for each user as that's totally absurd. 

Until Symantec take a look at the files and OK them, this is indeed a critical issue.

 

The wildcard idea looks good, as long as there's a way to put a path in that covers all the subfolders in a userprofile then I'd be happy.  smiley  <-  it's a face and it's happy

Yahya's picture
30
Nov
2011
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Wildcard and Java

 

 

I think Wildcard won't be implemented due to restriction from Java, which SEPM is using

 
 

Lawson Poling's picture
18
Jan
2012
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Yahya - That's kinda funny.

Yahya - That's kinda funny. SEP uses Java but every day I see the firewall blocking Java download requests from the Java application. At first I was suspicious of the firewall activity but it looks to me like Java auto updates cannot run because the file downloads are blocked. I can imagine someone at Symantec saying, "The client will be okay. It'll download the Java update and everything will be fine."

BUT, that's not why I'm here.

We need the ability to block variable filenames like BITxxx.tmp, WITHOUT a specific path, so SEP will stop tagging our SCCM downloads as malicious. Apparently the scanning technology doing this is Suspicious.Cloud

Comments?

Shawn T.'s picture
02
Feb
2012
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

SCCM downloads

Lawson, you may want to look at configuring a trusted web domain. Please create a new thread or case if you still need help with this.

Excluding a  trusted Web domain from scans: http://www.symantec.com/docs/HOWTO55211

Jimmy Noel's picture
04
Feb
2012
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

wildcards

Does anybody know, if and when exceptions with wildcards are possible?

We need to exclude one foldername (on any drive, any subdir, any junction).
Till now, we have to enter every possible absolute path.