If i understand you correctly, if a server does not have an applicable fixlet in the filter it wont show up in the report. Will this conflict if a server is already 100% complient according to the filter?
Regards Melvin
EDIT: Recounted. Counted wrong. The number of computers on the list in the rapport coincides with the number the rapport displays. Sorry for the inconvenience.
This report is great (as well as the others you have done!). Is there any way possible that the report could also show the list of outstanding fixlets for each machine (such as the Fixlet Compliance by Computer Group report did)?
We use the Fixlet Compliance by Computer Group report for all our customers and I know if we started providing them this new report they would be asking about the outstanding fixlets.
The thinking regarding this report is to make it simple and non-interactive, and thereby suitable for scheduled delivery. If we add the ability to click on a computer and showing the outstanding Fixlets below, would that not look exactly the same as the “Fixlet Compliance by Computer Group report”?
One way to do this is to make the computer names hot links to the assets within Web Reports. So you can drill into that computer and get more info, including any outstanding Fixlets. However, if you send the report off in an email, the links will break as the users might not have access back to Web Reports.
Basically my company is an MSP and we use the Fixlet Compliance by Computer Group report for each of our customers under patch management. We run the report in Web Reports and then export it to Excel for each customer. Every customer has a different baseline.
Our hope of the Schedulable Compliance by Computer report was to be able to have the compliance reports automatically e-mailed to the engineers in charge of each customer. But the more I think about it, since each customer has different baselines, there still has to be human interaction involved here (at least the way we have things set up). - For instance someone has to set the filters for each customer and save the reports.
Please let me know if there might be a way this report would be able to accommodate us. Thanks in advance.
@ptholt79, it sounds like the automation we need is to figure out the Filters for each of your customers.
We don’t have an API for that, but I think you should know about the feature in WebReports to export a report.
Once you export is along with the Filters, it is possible to modify the Filters programmatically and re-import as a new one.
Do you think it is possible for the outstanding fixlets to be displayed in this report? They don’t need to be hyperlinks as these reports would just be sent to our customers who do not have access to the our Web Reports. Thoughts?
Also is there an easier way to report on a baseline from this report other than inputting the baseline ID? Our baseline IDs change every month.
How are you imagining the outstanding Fixlets to be displayed? Under each computer and perhaps with a toggle to show/hide?
I am not keen for the following reasons:
Making the report interactive will nullify its current purpose of being email-able.
Putting in the outstanding Fixlets in any form will also make the payload bigger for emailing around.
For your second question.
Baselines are also Fixlets, so you can filter them under “Content” and use the names. You mentioned that the IDs are changing, are the names changing as well?
I see what you are getting at with the outstanding fixlets.
No, the names of our baselines do not change. What is the best way to filter on a baseline for this report? I seem to have discrepancies between the Interactive Compliance by Computer report and the Schedulable Fixlet Compliance by Computer report for the Applicable, Installed, and Outstanding fixlets.
@ptholt79 the way the report is written, if we were to filter on name of the baseline, it will be treated as one component. So the compliance is on the entire baseline, not individual components.
It is possible to change this in the report code itself.
Regarding differences between the reports, it is likely due to the filters being used. Since the “Fixlet Compliance by Computer Group” report has predefined filters, you kind of need to know exactly how I have defined them.
Please private message me and I will be happy to help you through these issues.
BUG FOUND: Found a bug while working with someone yesterday.
The symptom is that the PDF file generated does not look right. It is missing some pages, and information is missing.
This might happen on slower systems, or if the output file is very large. The PDF generator needs to wait for the JavaScript to finish processing. The default was to wait for 3 seconds which might not be sufficient.
I have created a new version of the lwmailer.exe v1.2.3 with a param, -script_delay.
Right now this defaults to 5 seconds, or change that to any number delay.
This example parameter will wait for 10 seconds.
Again, only necessary if you generate very large output and the info does not look right.
@ravik, the report gets its data from the Fixlets, and how the computers report their relevance.
If a computer shows that it is no longer relevant to a Fixlet, it will be considered fixed.
Does the report look right if you run it manually?
The HTML being delivered is a standalone file that does not need to refer to other external websites. Can you please turn on the browser debugging console (please search the net to find out how to do this if necessary) to see what errors might have been generated.
Has anyone modify the report template to use a specific baseline of patches instead of using the Patches for Windows site and if so how to change the filter to look at all the patches other than just the critical?
