Secure Path 3.0E HP-UX

[Peter Smith_9]

I'm trying to install Secure path 3.0E on an RP3440 with HP-UX 11.i v1. I installed all required patches from the documentation. When trying swinstall -s /CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot I get next message
A Remote Procedure Call to an agent has failed. Could not start a management session for :/tmp/CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot". Make sure the host is accessible from the network.

The patch Bundle with required pathes gave no problem. Has anybody has an idea how to solfe this problem.

[John Wood_4]

I'm seeing the same problem with SP 3.0E on HP-UX 11.11.

Recently we changed our DNS server, and I think this may be part of the problem, because if I did:

# nslookup 10.0.10.0 10.255.255.2

where 10.0.10.0 is my HP-UX 11.11 system's IP address, and 10.255.255.2 is the DNS server IP address, then nslookup fails with "can't find 10.0.10.0: Non-existant domain". I overcame this by creating /etc/nsswitch.conf to look at files first for hosts, then dns.

But still SecurePath install fails - now with "RPC exception".

[Toni_4]

Probably if patch procedure install works fine and other no, is the ubication of the depot is in diferent place that the depot patch? if yes maybe this is the problem. And check the network configuration like the other reply said.

[John Wood_4]

I have worked-around the problem by using an Ignite server. On the Ignite server, I copied the CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot to a "utilities" directory for HP-UX 11.11. Then I was able to do a swinstall on the target system, specifying the Ignite server name & directory to locate & install the Secure Path kit.

I still think there is/was a problem somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Obviously, as I was able to insall SecurePath by specifying my Ignit server as the depot location, my target system is able to communicate on the network OK. Any ideas?

Thanks,
John

[John Wood_4]

I believe this is a bug caused by patch PHCO_32116. If you do

what /usr/sbin/swagentd

and it shows PHCO_32116 in the output, then I think you will have this problem. I removed this patch from a test system, and then I could install SecurePath OK.

I have submitted a change request - JAGaf57288

[hung_9]

Hi John Wood
I meet this problem, And do not know how to solve. Help me pls!

- I do not Install patch PHCO_32116
- Using an Ignite Server, I do the following command:
ig_server># swreg -l depot /tmp/SecurePath/CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot

- And then on my targer server, I do:
target_server># swinstall -s ig_server:/tmp/SecurePath/CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot

But I meet the same problem.
Receiving the message : "A Remote Procedure Call to an agent has failed. Could not start a management session for :/tmp/CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot". Make sure the host is accessible from the network."

- Can you advice me something? Or what did you do on your Ignite server??


Thank you very much.
Hungtm2

[John Wood_4]

In the response to the change-request, the following work-around is suggested. I haven't tried this, I'm just passing the info on.

--------
The Secure Path depot can be repackaged and a new depot created
that can be read by SW-DIST. This is done by executing the following
steps as root:

# mkdir /tmp/products
# mkdir /tmp/CPQ

Untar the appropriate bad 3.0e Secure Path depot (located
in /tmp/SecurePath) to /tmp/CPQ:

# cd /tmp/CPQ
# tar -xvf /tmp/SecurePath/CPQswsp.11_11_64.3.0E.00F.00F.depot
# cd catalog
# touch swlock

Create a new depot packaged correctly, using the depot you untarred:
# swpackage -x media_type=tape -s /tmp/CPQ
@ /tmp/products/CPQ_11_11_64_3.depot

The depot, /tmp/products/CPQ_11_11_64_3.depot, can be read
successfully by SW-DIST in the 11.11 Dec 2004 OEUR and the PHCO_32116
patch.
-------

I'm a bit concerned that you may have a network configuration problem, because you are still having problems without the offending patch.

[hung_9]

Hi John Wood,
Thank you very much for your answer
I do follow your intruction
Every thing is OK.
But I do not understand why this depot is so bad. My network is really OK.

Thank you once more time!
Regards
Hungtm2