Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 181 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 76 subscribers
  • Views 37315 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

Sophos Firewall: v18.5 MR2: Feedback and experiences

LuCar Toni

https://community.sophos.com/sophos-xg-firewall/b/blog/posts/sophos-firewall-v18-5-mr2-is-now-available

Release Notes: https://docs.sophos.com/releasenotes/output/en-us/nsg/sf_185_rn.html

"Old" V18.5 MR1 Thread: https://community.sophos.com/sophos-xg-firewall/f/discussions/128960/sophos-firewall-v18-5-mr1-feedback-and-experiences/

"Old" V18.0 MR5 Thread: https://community.sophos.com/sophos-xg-firewall/f/discussions/127053/xg-firewall-v18-mr-5-feedback-and-experiences

Please review: https://support.sophos.com/support/s/article/KB-000043489?language=en_US



Prio
[gesperrt von: LuCar Toni um 8:07 AM (GMT -7) am 26 Mar 2022]

Top Replies

  • in reply to StevenSultana +6

    The specific change you mention was a result of a security review we carried out on the OTP functionality. It is not good practice to provide methods to recover existing secrets because this makes it much easier to create cloned tokens that could be used without the knowledge of the original user to gain access to their account. Recovering OTP on an account by deleting the existing secret and creating a new one is more secure because even if it is done by the wrong person, the original user will realize the error the next time they try and log in using their old token.

    You see the same behaviour in most websites that offer OTP options like this - the only way to recover if you lose your OTP is to re-initialize with a new secret.

    Your point about including more specifics about this in the release notes is valid. We try to keep the release notes brief so that customers can read them all quickly and identify areas that may concern them where they can dig in to documentation to find out more. Sometimes we make them too brief. We'll take your feedback into account.

    [I updated my original post because I mistakenly thought I was reading the v19 EAP1 forum. Apologies for any confusion.]

    Jump to answer
Parents
  • 0

    Hi folks,

    I have installed this version on my xg115W and it is not working well. I have tried a number of different configurations. The aim was to replace my home XG with this new box. I built a configuration based  on my existing system but with many cleaned up and refined policies and firewall rules. That was a disaster, throughput for speediest max'ed out the line, but web surfing, just did not work at all well, pages took many seconds and sometimes minutes to load and more often timed out leaving online payments in limbo.

    A restart partially fixed the issue but not completely.

    The logviewer showed many failed to associate connection errors.

    I removed over 50% of the configuration and in a lot of cases used the default XG provided policies with my firewall rules. With one user connected works well, while not as quick with page loads as my existing XG, still worked.

    I moved my IoT network across again after refining and reducing the configuration and end up with poor connection times and lots of cannot associate errors in the logviewer.

    So, the conclusion I have come to is that this version of XG software is not suitable for my XG115w with a full business licence.

    My IoT network has 7 wifi devices and 5 fixed devices, which most are not always active or powered on.

    Ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Howdy,

    I've got an XG 115 v3 with about 35 firewall rules (31 user/network rules + 4 WAF rules), 2 APs and about 40 devices (phones/tablets/game consoles/RasPi/VMs/servers/laptops/desktops). Ticks along quite nicely with minimal latency added and no throughput loss on my 42/13 FTTN connection. Works well for 4-5 concurrent users + whatever devices need access.

    I don't do Web Control nor TLS/SSL inspection on the XG 115 - Web control is done on EndPoints using Intercept X, or from the AdGuard Home VMs I run. DNS/DHCP aren't done on the XG, but the XG is acting as an SMTP MTA.

    Webadmin's never been quick, but not as slow as you've mentioned. Average weekly load is 0.54, CPU 12%, mem 2.5GB.

    I may try TLS/SSL inspection if the exception list management isn't too onerous when I upgrade the XG 115 to an XGS unit.

  • 0 in reply to ChrisKnight

    Hi Chris,

    Thank you for the information. Maybe I need a reset and start from scratch?

    which version of XG are you using?
    ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Hi Ian,

    Maybe. For all the XG units I've managed, the only time I've had performance issues is when I've managed to mangle DNS settings (i.e. running internal DNS and having the internal DNS forward to the XG, only for the XG to forward it back to the same servers... doh!). But again, no Web Control nor TLS/SSL inspection load.

    Currently running 18.5.1 MR1. Upgrading to MR2 as I type this.

  • 0 in reply to ChrisKnight

    Hi Chris,

    I fixed a dns issue yesterday, the XG does not hand out IPv6 dns info, but that does not explain the high number of unable to associate packet errors.

    ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Does "unable to associate" mean that it's trying to be stateful but it can't find the established connection so its dropping packets? The CPU utilization does seem to be increasing over time, so maybe that indicates some kind of cascading problem. Memory usage seems about what I see (on an XGS87).

    Have you tested it with only one LAN device hooked up -- or through the Console with no devices hooked up? I'm wondering if a defective RJ45 port or something could be hosing you.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Does "unable to associate" mean that it's trying to be stateful but it can't find the established connection so its dropping packets? The CPU utilization does seem to be increasing over time, so maybe that indicates some kind of cascading problem. Memory usage seems about what I see (on an XGS87).

    Have you tested it with only one LAN device hooked up -- or through the Console with no devices hooked up? I'm wondering if a defective RJ45 port or something could be hosing you.

Children