Sep intrusion prevention signatures not updating Sex dating in justice illinois
Setting up the host exclusions obviously did help mitigate the problem for the clients--but wasn't sufficiently "performant." One of the clients was able to successfully disable the Network Threat Protection (one part of the Symantec Endpoint Protection Suite) on the client side. And when the Network Threat Protection was re-enabled, the latency problem returned.
Immediately the latency problem improved from ~15 seconds to 4-to-6 seconds! Seemed pretty clear that SEP was causing additional latency.
to get and render an Info Path browser form of a Share Point site.
Interestingly, usually the first GET tended to take the longest.
But in the past four years I had seen no problems like this.I suggested that a more pure test would be to totally uninstall SEP and reboot (if you don't reboot, the teefer driver remains in memory) and then test. I suggested that they talk to Symantec support to find alternatives to uninstalling the entire SEP suite.I suggested that perhaps based on ("How to manually uninstall the Symantec Endpoint Protection client from Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 2008 R2 64-bit.") they might be able to make some registry changes to ensure that the Symantec Teefer* driver(s) are not loaded in memory long enough to do some testing and then easily reload the teefer driver.Verbose ULS logging showed that the Share Point server seemed to think it was serving the pages pretty quickly.The client was in one office building with one domain and the Share Point farm was in a datacenter that was part of another domain. So of course we took some network monitor traces to try to see where the latency really was.
And the route between the two was safe (no real risk of man-in-the-middle attacks for example) as well. So they decided to add the host to the exclusion policy and send it to all the workstations.