Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 15890 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

How do I re-categorized specific URL, domains and IP address to already included categories?

DavidWhitehead

Hi,

I'd like to find out how to re-categorize specific URLs, Domains and/or IP addresses without the need to create a customized category for the target. This was possible in UTM 9.x, allowing the target to either be blocked/unblocked accordingly. I've tried to search everywhere but can't find an option to do so. The only option I get is to add another category for the target, however, this does not override my current Category Blocking preferences. 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • 0

    Hi David,

    That's not possible at the moment, but it is something we are considering for future versions. Right now, you would need to either create a new custom category or URL Group and add a policy rule for that custom category ahead of the rule for the built-in category.

    Cheers

    Rich

  • 0 in reply to RichBaldry

    Thanks for your response! :)

    I'm pretty sure you should not only consider it, but instead, implement it in your coming releases. The reason for these is the accuracy of the categories are not 100% accurate. In UTM 9.x, we were able to do this without any pain. I understand that as a home user/tester, our feedback may not be as important as a corporate user feedback would be, however, I think we should still be heard. FYI, I would like to purchase the XG 750 within this year, and I know most people would say, I don't need it for home use, but, so what? I WANT it, but not without this feature. an example of miscategory: cdn.garenanow.com get's categorized as internet service and tagged as malicious, however, if I only test garenanow.com, it throws the right category, which is games. In UTM 9.4(this is what I'm using right now), I was able to rectify the miscategorization easily. I'm sure, any IT person in a corporate environment would find this extremely useful!

    I love the ability to add applications under a category in application filter of XG, but this should be accompanied by the ability to modify or override categories as well.

    Your workaround is fine, but it's just too much work for something that claims to be "simplified"

    Oh by the way, going off topic, the term simplified is lost in XG, because I'm still struggling to find things like, live logs for web filter, firewall and even the flow monitor. I'm also having a hard time trying to get the right results under reports too! The combination of Web Filter Policies and Firewall policies is also kinda confusing. You could at least modify the names within the menus to be a lot like UTM, or have a map for users to follow in recognizing what each menu does in comparison to UTM.

    Over all, I kinda like XG in terms of ease of bypassing HTTPS/SSL scanning and ease of making traffic shaping rules. 

  • 0 in reply to DavidWhitehead

    Hi David,

    Thanks for taking the time to provide all this feedback. I do agree with you on the need for simplicity - the fact that there's a good list of improvements we could make is really why I say 'consider' rather than 'implement'. We have to prioritise the work we can do.

    What I'd like for us to do is bring the concept of the Website List over from the UTM - the ability to add a URL, set the category for that URL and also apply tags to the URL. It feels to me like this is easier to manage in the long run than the multiple lists of URLs that you have to create with custom categories or URL groups. Do you find the UTM's Website List and URL tagging a helpful feature?

    Rich

  • 0 in reply to RichBaldry

    Hi Rich,

    "Do you find the UTM's Website List and URL tagging a helpful feature?" - Yes! It's an extremely helpful feature. It helps save time and effort in creating more rules for certain websites or URLs. Instead of having to create another rule for a URL, I'd just have to add that URL in the websites list, override the category and verification, and it would automatically be included in the rules set for the category I set it to. One thing I just couldn't get to work in UTM was it's web filter exceptions, which, to my surprise, was rather easy in XG! 

    I found where I would view live web filter logs in XG(well, it's not really live since the lowest/fastest I could set it to was 30secs), but am still puzzled where I would view live firewall logs(the one that has these info: action(dropped/rejected or rule implemented), type of service, source ip, source mac, dest ip, dest mac.

    I also have to correct my previous response, "ability to add applications in application list", it's not available in either UTM or XG, which would also be a plus.

    Another thing missing in XG, is live traffic shaping, where we just need to view connections in "Flow Monitor"(can't find this in XG too).

    Oh, even the country blocking and country exceptions in UTM was pretty neat too! since I've noticed I got a lot of connections going to germany lately, probably because of a software I tested in trial mode that was created and developed by a german company. I just had to go to country blocking and hit "All" connections to/from germany, and problem solved. Couldn't find that in XG too, though, not really critical at the moment.

    Also, the monitoring could have been better if it would open in another page or window, just like in UTM, it helps in monitoring while in the process of creating a rule or definition.

    I understand at the moment, that you guys are focused on getting some bugs sorted out, and most UTM features would remain in UTM features, but I'm a little wondering if you would maintain both platforms or would just one over the other sometime in the future. If you guys would indeed need to choose one in the long run, I(or should I say we?) hope to see most, if not all, features of the platform being dropped implemented in the platform that would survive.

    Sorry for the long reply, I just feel like voicing out my opinions, comments and suggestions for a very promising firewall OS. Maybe we should have a feature request page and be able to see what's approved and what's in consideration? 

    In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to deal with workarounds and just apply your suggestion for my situation. I'd still have to monitor if it would bypass scanning though as I plan to implement this in my internet cafe business sometime soon. (Yes, my home network is my testing lab, and all home devices are the lab rats) :)

  • 0

    Is this still being considered for implementation?