Skip to main content
Question

Adding mount path to an exiting disk library with ransomware protection enabled

  • July 25, 2025
  • 4 replies
  • 41 views

Forum|alt.badge.img+3

Hi,

 

We are adding a mount path to an existing disk library on a linux media agent  that has the ransomware protection enabled. It looks like it is not beeing automatically associated with the selinux commvault context “cvstorage” the other volume is. 

We did te activation procedure again after adding the volume with no success. The fstab is not updated and the ‘mount | grep “^/” show that the initial volume is mounted with context “context=system_u:object_r:cvstorage_t:s0” and the newly added volume “seclabel”.

Is there a specific pocedure for enabling the ransomware protection on a newly added volume?

 

4 replies

Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Vaulter
  • July 26, 2025

Hi ​@jxb ,

Ransomware protection is enabled on the Media Agent , and all associated disk libraries linked to the MA will be protected accordingly.

However, for setting up ransomware protection on a Linux Media Agent with a new disk library, kindly refer to the document linked below, which outlines the configuration steps in detail.



https://documentation.commvault.com/2023e/essential/configuring_ransomware_protection_for_linux_mediaagent.html


Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Author
  • Byte
  • July 26, 2025

Hello Pradeep.

The ransomware protection was already enabled on the media agent at the time when the disk library contained a single volume and we could see it associated with the correct selinux context.

When adding another volume to the disk library after the ransomware protection have been enabled, it doesn’tseem to be protected. 


Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Vaulter
  • July 26, 2025

Hi ​@jxb 

Do we see any errors on Audit and cvsecurity.log file. Also, recommend to re run the command once again and verify the logs for more details.


Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Author
  • Byte
  • July 26, 2025

Hi ​@Pradeep ,

We already ran all the steps with no success. I’ll take a look at the logs and keep you updated.

Maybe we should disable the protection and re-enable it? The python script provide a « remove_protection » , is there any sort of documentation about its usage?