I get thousands of this alerts every time I use https://www.speedtest.net/
Does it make sense? how can I disable it or fix the issue?
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
I get thousands of this alerts every time I use https://www.speedtest.net/
I have applied this solution
https://community.sophos.com/kb/en-us/133096
Now not only I dont get those alerts, I have full speed on upload 300Mbps with this setting enabled I got around 260 Mbps and thousands of alerts
Now I have disable DoS settings
And again under the same conditions the CPU load seems to be similar
My rules
IPS service disable and DoS settings disable:
I have replicated the test, this time with speedtest.
IPS engine Enable DoS Disable
IPS engine Disable DoS Disable
Helo IOraiden
This is not a bug nor is snort "wrong implemented". But this is behaviour as designed in SFOS. XG Firewall also uses snort for application classification, and application classification is per XG design globally activated to get all those fancy application reports in reporting. Also means, that IPS always touches the traffic, even if there is no explicit IPS (or AppControl) rule in place.
You can disable that behaviour in the device console using the command
system application_classification off
AppControl and IPS is afterwards still active for any rule where app or ips policy is in place, but it will not touch anymore traffic which has no such policy in place. Means you will reach even on low end hardware easily linespeeds then w/o app and ips policy in place.
Hope that helps (and please also give feedback if it DID help or not ;o))
/Sascha
Thanks a lot, I have tried and it looks like it is working as I expected, now I get full speed.
So to be clear by enanling this option I lose all the functionality related to "Cloud Applications" or is there something else?
Now as before the IPS will only apply to the firewall rules I choose but application discovery will be always off in any case?
One weird thing is why it can handle the donwload speed but not the upload.
I hope Snort 3.0 will be release soon so we won't have this kind of problems, are you playing internally already with the beta?
And as a recomendation it would be nice to have the ability to disable this through the interface, or make clear somehow how the cloud app thing works, so maybe being able to enable cloud app in each firewall rule would help a lot.
Now I have disable the cloud application option but in the interface it looks like the "service" (is no really a service) is working.
Let me throw a little curve ball into this discussion. Why don't other users have this issue, some do but not a majority. I can push my 100/40 without doing those modifications. IAs I have posted in the past i have tuned the IPS DOS and my IPS policies.
Somewhere there is a configuration issue?
Ian
Concerning:
"So to be clear by enanling this option I lose all the functionality related to "Cloud Applications" or is there something else?"
No, you don't loose anything besides reporting of used applications for traffic matching a firewall rule where's no app or ips policy in place. For all other firewall rules XG behaves as before.
rfcat_vk said:Let me throw a little curve ball into this discussion. Why don't other users have this issue, some do but not a majority. I can push my 100/40 without doing those modifications. IAs I have posted in the past i have tuned the IPS DOS and my IPS policies.Somewhere there is a configuration issue?
I’d imagine it depends on your hardware and connection speed. More powerful hardware or slower connection speeds will probably not see this “issue”. With Snort 3.0 and multi threading support, I’m assuming this will become less of an issue, if it’s implemented with Sophos XG.
One last question, should I place IPS rules on the portforwarding rule (bussiness application rule) of a server or in the allow LAN->WAN rule of the server? or in both?
This depends on how much you want protect. Gor sure any incoming rule from WAN or other insecure networks should use IPS.
Also your LAN should at least use some rules outgoing to WAN (Protect as minimum especially webservices/Browsers & Plugins against zero days).
More IPS usage == more security == more performance penalty.
I personally use everywhere tuned IPS policies per firewall rule specific to protected assets (NAS, Windows Clients, Linux Clients, IoT....) also between internal network segments at least a base protection. As long as I do not depend on linespeeds at least....
And I use a XG125...surely not the performance beast, but with some tuning perfectly ok for my usage on my 250/25 WAN Link and my internal network segments...
/Sascha
So I should use Target=Server rules for WAN to LAN FW rules and Target=Client for LAN to WAN FW rules?
This would be the starting point and then filter by technology or whatever, right?
So I should use Target=Server rules for WAN to LAN FW rules and Target=Client for LAN to WAN FW rules?
This would be the starting point and then filter by technology or whatever, right?
That's basically correct.
Clients use Client rules to protect their software as browsers, IM and Office applications etc., servers use rules to protect their services as DNS, Web Services, RDP etc. which are via Network accessible.
It's not completely black and white....also servers have some outgoing connections where they act as "client" and also Clients can provide accessible services as SMB, RDP, WMI etc.
But a good start is as mentioned in first sentence.
SaschaParis I can't find any documentation regarding this command
system application_classification on/off/show
Can we get more information about it?
FloSupport Can I get additional information regarding this firewall feature that is not documented anywhere?
system application_classification on/off/show
Ok, the mentioned microapp discovery is a different story. This is mainly used for further sub classifying "apps" within web applications as Facebook (chat, mail, post etc.)
The global application classification is for all apps, not only the http/https ones. I don't know why cloud apps are still recognized (if there's no app rule on place at all, policy set to "none", and not "allow all"). Maybe this is collected differently to normal app control. I didn't try it....
Could you clarify this intenally? maybe is a bug or something not properly implemented.
SaschaParis any progress with this?
Can someone tell me what this command do exactly?
Hi l0rdraiden