Skip to main content

generating a compliance summary report based on an authorization list

i hope someone doesn’t respond to this post and say… hey it was already done – right here!  i searched for awhile and couldn’t find any canned reports someone had done to display security update compliance by machine based on an authorization list.  i’m no sql expert, and my skillz at writing sql queries are not m@dd by any stretch of the imagination.  however, i was able to finagle what appears to be decent output.

here’s a screen capture of the query output we’ll be working with:

image

 

this report contains links that will generate another report of the specific updates used in the calculation of the summary:

image

 

background

the reason why we find this report immensely useful is because it limits the data set based on your authorization list.  when you execute the report, you will have to provide two things:

  • a collection id – which set of machines do you want to look at?
  • an authorization list id – which authorization list do you want to check against?

this way, when you look at compliance numbers, they are based on the things that you authorized for your environment and not just the massive list of things that could potentially apply to a machine.  this seems to matter in larger environments where updates are governed by their necessity and not as simple as going to windows update and running install everything!

 

installing the report

if you notice in the first report, the scope id is the 6th column of the list.  the reason it’s in there is because the second report requires it, otherwise, you’d get a return of everything that’s applicable, and not just the ones you authorized.

you can get the two report MOFs required to generate this report from system center central at this LINK.  one issue with reports that utilize drill through models is that the relationship doesn’t come through properly during the mof export.  because of this, i removed the “linked” relationship and exported them.  once you import the report mof, you’ll need to make the following changes:

  1. open the Compliance Summary Report by Collection and Authorization List report.
  2. under the Links tab, change the link type to Link to another report.
  3. select the report named Compliance Summary Report Detail by Computer.
  4. by default, the MachineName prompt will fill in with column 1.  this is valid and does not require changing.
  5. change the column id for AuthListID to 6.

image

 

that’s it!  now when you click the arrow for a computer in the main report, you’ll be able to drill through to the detailed report.

 

caveats

before you go off and try this, here are a few things to understand:

  • if the machine is failing to scan or failing to send up state messages related to the update compliance state, these will not show up in the report and will skew your numbers.
  • from technet: “Unlike other software updates state messages that are replicated up the hierarchy to the central site, state messages for deployments are replicated up the hierarchy to the site where the deployment was created. Software update deployment enforcement, evaluation, and compliance information will be missing from reports when they are run from a site higher in the hierarchy than where the deployment was created.”
  • the client version must be >= 4.00.
  • this report is defined to pull microsoft security updates only.

 

 

hope you find this helpful.  i can get a list of about 1000 machines in about 30 seconds so the return is not too terrible. :)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

using preloadpkgonsite.exe to stage compressed copies to child site distribution points

UPDATE: john marcum sent me a kind email to let me know about a problem he ran into with preloadpkgonsite.exe in the new SCCM Toolkit V2 where under certain conditions, packages will not uncompress.  if you are using the v2 toolkit, PLEASE read this blog post before proceeding.   here’s a scenario that came up on the mssms@lists.myitforum.com mailing list. when confronted with a situation of large packages and wan links, it’s generally best to get the data to the other location without going over the wire. in this case, 75gb. :/ the “how” you get the files there is really not the most important thing to worry about. once they’re there and moved to the appropriate location, preloadpkgonsite.exe is required to install the compressed source files. once done, a status message goes back to the parent server which should stop the upstream server from copying the package source files over the wan to the child site. anyway, if it’s a relatively small amount of packages, you can

How to Identify Applications Using Your Domain Controller

Problem Everyone has been through it. We've all had to retire or replace a domain controller at some point in our checkered collective experiences. While AD provides very intelligent high availability, some applications are just plain dumb. They do not observe site awareness or participate in locating a domain controller. All they want is the name or IP of one domain controller which gets hardcoded in a configuration file somewhere, deeply embedded in some file folder or setting that you are never going to find. How do you look at a DC and decide which applications might be doing it? Packet trace? Logs? Shut it down and wait for screaming? It seems very tedious and nearly impossible. Potential Solution Obviously I wouldn't even bother posting this if I hadn't run across something interesting. :) I ran across something in draftcalled Domain Controller Isolation. Since it's in draft, I don't know that it's published yet. HOWEVER, the concept is based off

sccm: content hash fails to match

back in 2008, I wrote up a little thing about how distribution manager fails to send a package to a distribution point . even though a lot of what I wrote that for was the failure of packages to get delivered to child sites, the result was pretty much the same. when the client tries to run the advertisement with an old package, the result was a failure because of content mismatch. I went through an ordeal recently capturing these exact kinds of failures and corrected quite a number of problems with these packages. the resulting blog post is my effort to capture how these problems were resolved. if nothing else, it's a basic checklist of things you can use.   DETECTION status messages take a look at your status messages. this has to be the easiest way to determine where these problems exist. unfortunately, it requires that a client is already experiencing problems. there are client logs you can examine as well such as cas, but I wasn't even sure I was going to have enough m