PSA: Wrong version of "Check Point Remote Access VPN Clients for Windows" (still 81.40)

[columb]

Hello,

Please note that it looks like wrong version of "Check Point Remote Access VPN Clients for Windows" software was posted under this link:

https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal/role/supportcenterUser/page/default.psml/m...

It's showing E81.40 rather than advertised E82.00. Checksum (SHAs) match so it lookalike wrong file was released.

I'm making TAC aware of this so hopefully correct link will be posted soon.

[G_W_Albrecht]

Why open a SR# with TAC for this ? I would rather suggest to add this remark as a feedback to sk163233 !

[columb]

Hi,

Thanks for the tip.

I did just that but they are adamant that the links are correct... which tehy are not 🙂 So it's a bit of to-and-fro for a moment.

Defiantly after installation of the latest MSI download ABOUT screen is showing E81.40 rather than E82.00.

In other words don't try to package this version with SCCM and wonder why it doesn't supersede previous version 🙂

Cheers

Chris

[Elad_Shoval]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your note!

Please note that the file in the link you attached is correct - it is the E82.00 version.

Unfortunately, the version name is wrong and remained as the version before. However, you can see that the build number does change (if you compare it to E81.40).

Thanks,

Elad Shoval | Team Leader, PC VPN Clients, R&D
Check Point Software Technologies 

[columb]

Hello,

Thank you for getting back to me. So when are you going to release version with correct "About" screen? Do you have any plans to improve your QA processes to not let that happen again?

Long story short one of our guys wasted some time trying to package this new version and release it through the SCCM but he was confused by the version number and was looking at why it wasn't being correctly deployed and it wasn't superseding previous version... obviously it takes no genius to guess that he wasn't happy about this when he realised that "about" screen is wrong (fully and rightly so expecting to see correct version number!).

Thanks

Chris