Jump to content


Photo

QVCS Enterprise 2.1.24 Update Server Issue


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Terry Mullican

Terry Mullican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Cookeville, TN
  • Interests:Clarion, MSSQL, SetupBuilder, QVCS and so on....

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:33 PM

Jim,

We updated our server to QVCS Enterprise 2.1.24 and the server.bat runs and closes? Running as a services it says it is running but the clients all report "Server is down, or not available at: %IP Address:9889".

Our previous version: 2.1.23
Java: 1.6.0_20
Network Setup: Domain / clients

We replaced the following files:
- server_out.jar
- installEnterpriseService.bat
- test_enterprise_install.bat
- test_enterprise_uninstall.bat

Once we seen this issue, we restore the main directory back to previous version (backup made before the update). And it does the same thing!

I really need some help on this! Any ideas?

Thanks in advance!

Terry Mullican
Tire Power Project Leader
Tire Company Solutions, LLC
www.tcstirepower.com
Terry Mullican
Tire Company Solution, LLC
www.tcstire.com

#2 Terry Mullican

Terry Mullican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Cookeville, TN
  • Interests:Clarion, MSSQL, SetupBuilder, QVCS and so on....

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:49 PM

Update: Ok, I missed the blog post on the work around for the Java issue! This fixed the issue! Sorry Jim!

Jim,

We updated our server to QVCS Enterprise 2.1.24 and the server.bat runs and closes? Running as a services it says it is running but the clients all report "Server is down, or not available at: %IP Address:9889".

Our previous version: 2.1.23
Java: 1.6.0_20
Network Setup: Domain / clients

We replaced the following files:
- server_out.jar
- installEnterpriseService.bat
- test_enterprise_install.bat
- test_enterprise_uninstall.bat

Once we seen this issue, we restore the main directory back to previous version (backup made before the update). And it does the same thing!

I really need some help on this! Any ideas?

Thanks in advance!

Terry Mullican
Tire Power Project Leader
Tire Company Solutions, LLC
www.tcstirepower.com


Terry Mullican
Tire Company Solution, LLC
www.tcstire.com

#3 Jim Voris

Jim Voris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 08 December 2011 - 07:39 AM

My guess is that the 2.1.23 client is trying to connect to the server using anonymous SSL (the default for 2.1.23), and the new 2.1.24 server no longer supports anonymous SSL connections. (This was changed in 2.1.24 because of Oracle changes in the 1.6.0_29 and later releases of the JVM -- see the blog entry: http://www.qumasoft....1-2011.html#229 for some details).

Also, see that blog entry for how to change the connection settings on the client so that it can connect to the 2.1.24 server. Once the 2.1.23 client is able to connect to the 2.1.24 server, it should get 'automatically' updated to the 2.1.24 client.
Jim Voris -- Author of QVCS/QVCS-Pro/QVCS-Enterprise
Affordable Version Control Solutions
www.qumasoft.com

#4 _Frederic_

_Frederic_

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 03:46 PM

Jim,

As Oracle has delivered a version 1.6.0_30 wich fix the regression they made on SSL connections in 1.6.0_29, is there stil a reason for the new 2.1.24 not to accept anonymous SSL connections ?

I hope this sentences is "English understandable"...

In other words :
I am running the version 2.1.23
I've installed the 1.6.0_30 and for the moment, everythings seems fine. (without the hack described in your blog)
I don't really want to install the version 2.1.24 if it's not encrypted anymore and if I have to make a VPN

Thank you

#5 Jim Voris

Jim Voris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:37 PM

2.1.24 doesn't have anonymous SSL support anymore -- I removed the code. Here was my thinking:

If you are really concerned about security, then anonymous SSL doesn't really work, because it is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.

If your security concerns can be satisfied by anonymous SSL, then you'll be just as safe with no encryption, since the bulk of the traffic is not clear text per se -- it is compressed clear text. It wouldn't be that hard to figure it out, but it would mean the 'bad guy' is willing to go to some effort, which also means they would likely have the resources also to do the man-in-the-middle attack as well... so anonymous SSL doesn't really do anything except supply a false sense of security.

If you want or need a secure connection, you really need to use a VPN.
Jim Voris -- Author of QVCS/QVCS-Pro/QVCS-Enterprise
Affordable Version Control Solutions
www.qumasoft.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users