Conflicting Oneclient Product Already Installed

[Baldomero Prado]

Thiserror indicates that a WithSecure Product has been previously installed on the computer. The uninstallation of the previous WithSecure product has left some leftover files on the computer which are conflicting with the new installation.

To resolve this issue:

So, previously I used a management server where I had access to all my client's different VPN connections using site-to-site connections to the firewall on the network. Unfortunately, due to security upgrades, they have now decided to switch to (10+) client VPN connections only.

As I am already using several other client VPN connections to other networks with conflicting IP configurations and subnets, it's almost undoable to install these connections on my PC locally. As a temporary solution I now run a few virtual machines that each have a VPN connection set up in the guest's Windows OS. However, as the number of needed connections grow, using all these resources for each VM seems almost ridiculous.

Your question seems fabulous and I'm sorry it didn't get enough attention earlier. Unfortunately, it's lacking some of the details that would make this easier to answer. I hereby try a bit to answer it anyway.

You mention your "client's" VPN connections. There client refers to a customer. Then you say "client VPN connections", but I'm wondering if, at that point, you're not referring to a customer, but an end user workstation in a client/server model.

For instance, are we talking about 3 sites, or 13, or 73? Who are the sites owned by? It seems like you're in a role of supporting your client's network, but then the client imposed technical networking rules on you. So, who is in control? (In multiple small MSP businesses where I worked, the company supplying the technicians was in nearly full control of all details, and certainly in full control over more specific details like how VPNs were implemented.)

One of the keys to making such scenarios work easier is to have a clean and well-working network design. If the current layout of various subnets isn't working, that may need to be re-designed. Unfortunately, "renumbering" is notorious for being expensive and challenging. (Even though the act would seemingly be free, it takes time to design the scheme and can take more time to implement it.)

It can often be helpful to think about: "What is working for people who may be in similar situations?" I don't mean the situation of having lots of VPNs. I mean, more broadly, a situation like having multiple computers on different sites.

Typically the goal is to have your own internal network working well. As for connecting to remote networks owned by other companies, there is some risk of IP subnet overlapping. If people do a fairly decent job of trying to somewhat randomize the third IPv4 octet, that can reduce the chances of overlapping, but with enough networks, it certainly can still happen (especially with 192.168.low-number or 192.168.168, which are popular).

Edit 1: Before going into NAT, let me though out another possible approach. If you're using IPv4 and can adopt IPv6, but haven't yet, then using that technology can introduce another set of numbers while also feeling rather productive, as your solution provides more benefit than just moving an IPv4 subnet around to try to avoid a conflict.

As a brief overview of various methods on how you could implement NAT, one method is using PNAT, Port-based Network Address Translation, sometimes called PAT or NAT, which is often implemented by having just one IP address being "overloaded", used for multiple types of connections by just using different port numbers. However, you can also have "1-to-1 NAT" where a block of X addresses at one location corresponds to a block of X addresses at another location. (This may be the approach that is easiest to use and maintain, if you can just identify available network address blocks to pull this off.) Using a 1-to-1 style of NAT may be easier to set up than the possibility of a "Dynamic NAT" solution where the address blocks may be inequal in size, perhaps acting similar to PNAT but using multiple addresses in a subnet, rather than multiple ports with an IP address. If you map multiple ports with PNAT then you could also map multiple addresses, but that flexibility is often of unnecessary layer of additional complexity.

Implementing such NAT often takes a bit of time thinking about what addresses should be used, and may take more considerable time and skill implementing rules on infrastructure devices (routers/firewalls/etc.) That may be painful. However, once set up on the infrastructure devices, the experience may be painless for the end user workstations.

That may sound a bit painful. As I stated before, "Ultimately, sometimes there are conflicts, and that leads to pain." I've seen official Cisco training material, designed for colleges training network professionals, admit to that. So, if the world's largest organizations are not able to completely avoid pain, you may not be able to either.

If you feel like you're struggling with having your client's requirements not mesh well with what you are trying to accomplish, an effective route to seek more advice on that front may be to think of your client as an employer, and ask a question on how to handle such a conflict at Workplace.StackExchange.com

We only connect to one remote network at a time, using mainly Cisco Anyconnect so conflicting IP addresses/ranges is not an issue. Our local-laptop gets assigned a new IP address on the remote network and all traffic is routed through the VPN tunnel. No local traffic is permitted , although this is configurable. Multiple local-machines can connect at the same time each is an independent connection.

I sent an Activity Log with my ticket. I was told that, from the log, they could tell that I was using an older version of Evernote, and that I should submit another ticket if the problem happened again after updating.

To reduce the conflicting changes issue on your devices, manually sync before you start working on a note and sync again when you finish. Do this whenever you change devices to keep the notes updated on our servers and ready to be synced to the other device.

The only reason I use Evernote is to have notes that I can edit from multiple devices. Lots of apps seem to be able to handle that without user intervention (or, at least, without frequent user intervention). Indeed, *Evernote* used to be able to handle that without user intervention. At least, it did for me.

Lately Evernote has been pushing "Tasks". And I'm sitting here thinking: why are you pushing new features when there are problems with the core functionality of the existing app? (I've read many, many other reports of people with frustrating sync issues. Some have reported conflicts after editing a note on a single device? Crazy if true.)

I used to use WebClipper. I stopped because I frequently discovered it chewing up 100% CPU. That was on two different computers. The problem seemed to happen when the machines came out of sleep. I reported the problem but never got a response. So I just stopped using the feature.

I've been a user of Evernote since 2010. 'Conflicting Notes' is my single biggest frustration. I use it specifically because it can sync over multiple devices. They are never used concurrently. I have 4 desktop machines, 2 laptops, 2 tablets, and a phone. Syncing is a vital feature for me. Right now I have 18 notes in my Conflicting Notes folder. How hard would it be to create a tool that would merge two notes with the same name and remove any duplicated text? It sounds like a freshman programming project. It is annoying enough that if a competitor ever came up with an absolutely easy and foolproof transition tool, I would be gone. And telling me to manually sync before and after editing each note should be an embarrassment to your staff. That is what we expect the software to be doing, no?

I just got my first duplicate on a note with a LOT of text. I started using Evernote only a month ago, and was super happy with it, purchased a premium account. But now I discover that resolving conflicts has never been solved by Evernote! You can find posts about it up to 10 years back! My jaw dropped. How can this be? It's one of the key things Evernote should be good at: syncing across devices! How can it be that this has not been resolved?! Somebody is asleep at the wheel...

Evernote user since 2008. Getting really tired of Evernote sync / note conflict issues. I pay $69/year for Evernote Premium expressly to be able to sync between 3 devices. Taking the time to have to sort out conflict issues is really cumbersome. Please Evernote get this fundamental component resolve. I REALLY don't want to have to Google "Evernote alternatives".

I was already frustrated. Dealing with support has made that frustration boil over. They send me an email overnight. I reply in the morning. They send me an email overnight. Each individual interaction is taking a full day.

And I get the sense that the one and only goal of each interaction is to close the ticket. I don't mean: close the ticket by solving the problem. I just mean: close the ticket. (I don't think there's even been an effort to *understand* the problem. They have the activity log from the device that created the conflict. Is there no useful info in that massive log? At all? And if not: why the hell not?)

I do almost all of my editing on my Mac. But occasionally I use my iPad or iPhone. If I can't do that I have literally no reason to use Evernote. If it seemed like this was an issue they were aware of, one that they were working to solve, I'd wait it out. But it doesn't seem like they are. So: no reason to wait.

Checked your internet connection yet ? Longer ping time, jitter and packet loss above 0% can signal problems there. Same with WiFi, especially the 2.4 GHz band is often very crowded. It can be fine during the day, and ***** in the evening, only by more users, on neighboring networks as well. Even if you have no access, they all share bandwidth, and when overloaded loose packages.

3a8082e126