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.

Scott_Lockington

Scott_Lockington
Member for: 2 years 45 weeks
Contact: Send this user an email
Member for: 2 years 45 weeks
Contribution Stats
1
Solution
4
Forum Threads
9
Comments
0
Blog Entries
2
Ideas
0
Articles
0
Videos
0
Downloads
0
Events
0
Groups Joined

Scott_Lockington's Activity

Show:
New forum discussion 02 Dec 2009
I need a solution Hello,  I recently uninstalled/reinstalled and restored the DB on my SEPM server in order to move the remote SQL DB to a different server running SQL 2008, from SQL 2005.  Following the instructions at the b
New forum discussion 08 Sep 2009
I need a solution Hello,  I can't seem to find steps to recover from a bad or false positive SEP11 definition file (AV, NTP, PTP) in the forums or SEP admin guide, am I missing the obvious?  In SAV10 it was simple to des
New idea 24 Aug 2009
Hello,  I'd like to request that the Network Threat Protection Firewall have an explicit Default Deny statement listed in the rules that is NOT allowed to be unchecked, as a reminder that when the clients are in "Server Control" there is a default deny rule that as of now you ca
New idea 23 Jul 2009
Hello, I have some quick thoughts on the NTP component of SEP11. The IPS and FW has been the biggest improvement over SAV10 having those features locally on all machines has really helped slow down (but not stop) the infections from Social Engineering Trojans and Fake AV pages. But the solutio
New forum discussion 16 Jul 2009
I need a solution I apologize if this has been covered before but my searches did not turn up an answer. I would like to schedule a scan GREATER then once a month, it appears the options in the SEPM is to either scan daily, weekl
New forum discussion 24 Jun 2009
I need a solution Hello,  I'd like to ask if there is a way to stop SEP11 from scanning a folder at all  (through Autoprotect and Scheduled Scans) instead of just stopping risk detection?  It doesn't make sense to m