Posted on 06-03-2015 06:35 AM
I am testing symantecremovaltool.command running on computers that have old versions of symantec endpoint protection.
(script can be found at the following link, scroll to the bottom of web page)
The download info says It requires no user input when run as root.
https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.TECH103489.html
When run via policy it 'fails', requesting command line arguments.
When run from the command line, no arguments (just call the script ./symantecremovaltool.command) it runs, uninstalls SEP and the application is not visible in launchpad afterwards.
If i create a .pkg of the symantecremovaltool.command and deploy the pkg, have the /private/tmp/symantecremovaltool.command to kick off the script, it works, but now the application icons are still in launchpad
if i create a policy that just runs the symantecremovaltool.command it fails and ask for -arguments ??
anyone having any luck just running the script via policy and having the app icons also removed?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Posted on 06-13-2015 09:39 AM
I ended up manually editing a select case statement in the script, and it now runs. Directing the case statement to the -A case
Posted on 06-13-2015 09:39 AM
I ended up manually editing a select case statement in the script, and it now runs. Directing the case statement to the -A case
Posted on 12-18-2015 09:25 AM
I ran into the same problem. When you're running the command file from the terminal, it's asking for a 1 (run) or 2 (exit). You can pipe the 1 to the command and it'll run. I have a package that copies the command file to the tmp folder as well, and in File and Processes - Execute Command I have:
echo 1 | /private/tmp/RemoveSymantecMacFiles.command
It'll pipe the 1 to the command and run automatically.
Posted on 12-18-2015 11:13 AM
the file requires no user input when run as root. But i kept getting an error, I tracked the error to the select case statement line 2090 and hardcoded it to -A
Posted on 04-20-2016 06:22 AM
Can you please elaborate on where exactly to hardcode the -A? the script has changed, and line 2090 is probably not the same.