Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 5176 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Application control - poor decisions

MawfTech

Well I've not been back here for a while but it's time for another post and this time I'd like feedback from you guys about a decision Sophos has made regarding app control.

We use app control extensively and I block most things not related to our business by default (games, peer to peer etc). One noteable change recently was for Sophos to now add a Firefox V7 and higher policy option. Now while I fully understand the reason for this because of the mindless version updates vomiting out of the Mozilla labs at the moment, I don't understand why they don't pick off the major version numbers and especially, the ability to block beta versions. I've about 20% of users at  my organization that use Firefox and of those, about a third watch the firefox website like hawks always wanting the latest, greatest version even if it's not tested and released. Previously, by allowing specific versions and blocking everything else, I had the ability to lock down to only released versions and I also had the ability to lockout old defunct versions that were either to vulnerable or really not fit for purpose (v7 immediately springs to mind!). Now, my users are freely downloading v9 beta, installing it, using it and I have absolutely no control over that with Sophos because they've adopted a v7+ identity only. How bad is that!

I'd like to get some feedback on whether you feel this is the right approach or not. As administrators, we know that the FF version change every 30 days is a big problem and I know there will be a few people out there that don't really care that users can get to higher versions even untested betas and alphas but I and many others do. How does the community feel about this approach?

 Should we at the very least still continue to get individual version control? Should we have the v7+ AND the individual version control?

Matt

:19333


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Now it's not just looking at the version string of firefox.exe as this mechanism would be too simple to defeat. In fact with a few exceptions (FF, IE, Adobe Reader, MS Office, Remote Desktop) the entries are version agnostic. You might call the design decision unfortunate but that's how it is at the moment - initially Application Control was intended to block certain classes of applications or to allow only a few specific ones for a given purpose (and probably there haven't been many requests for stricter version control). Thus adding another entry might involve more than just a few clicks and keystrokes.

    Guess Sophos is listening but you'd have to make your case for strict version control (there are IMO some applications I don't quite understand how they've made it on the list: GIMP - productivity? - or SAP CRM Mobile -??), describe the scenario, explain what it would gain or what risks or losses it could help to avoid and why you can't achieve this (easily) by other means. Needn't be a novel.

    Right now at least four components overlap here: Application Control, Data Control, NAC and SCF,  and two more are to some extent involved: A-V (with PUA detection) and Patch Assessment (though it does not enforce a decision). Medium term I expect some convergence (and perhaps something like version/patch enforcement). OTOH mobile security and securing "the cloud" might have a higher priority.

    Christian

    :19675
Reply
  • 0

    Now it's not just looking at the version string of firefox.exe as this mechanism would be too simple to defeat. In fact with a few exceptions (FF, IE, Adobe Reader, MS Office, Remote Desktop) the entries are version agnostic. You might call the design decision unfortunate but that's how it is at the moment - initially Application Control was intended to block certain classes of applications or to allow only a few specific ones for a given purpose (and probably there haven't been many requests for stricter version control). Thus adding another entry might involve more than just a few clicks and keystrokes.

    Guess Sophos is listening but you'd have to make your case for strict version control (there are IMO some applications I don't quite understand how they've made it on the list: GIMP - productivity? - or SAP CRM Mobile -??), describe the scenario, explain what it would gain or what risks or losses it could help to avoid and why you can't achieve this (easily) by other means. Needn't be a novel.

    Right now at least four components overlap here: Application Control, Data Control, NAC and SCF,  and two more are to some extent involved: A-V (with PUA detection) and Patch Assessment (though it does not enforce a decision). Medium term I expect some convergence (and perhaps something like version/patch enforcement). OTOH mobile security and securing "the cloud" might have a higher priority.

    Christian

    :19675
Children
No Data