Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 43 replies
  • Answers 3 answers
  • Subscribers 50 subscribers
  • Views 126239 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

Bad URL Categorization

LINCK

Hi Sophos

Customers of XG Firewalls are reporting a bad url clasification, for example, this sites are detected as Porn/Sexuality/Nudity in other Sophos products but the clasification in XG firewall is bad.

Support say me that "Send a URL Request" but the troubble is that these URLs are Porn.

Please check.

Regards

 

Linck Tello Flores

INNOVARE




[locked by: Sure Win at 12:59 PM (GMT -8) on 13 Feb 2018]
Parents Reply Children
  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    Hi ShachinGurung

    Apparently Support don't understain the issue.

    I have 1000 or more websites and is impossible port these sites in the URL for recategorize.

    If you test these URLs in Sophos Web Appliance or with Sophos Endpoint with Web Control activated these urls are detected as Nudity, this is correct, but the URL Filter in XG Firewall is bad categorized.

    Test you in the other Sophos products and see that the categorization is correct. After test in XG Firewall and comment the results.

    Regards

    Linck Tello Flores

    INNOVARE LATAM

  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    See you one example.

    The solution don't is sent the URL to re-categorize else Sophos should be check the URL engine or database in the all XG Firewall.

    Regards

    Linck Tello Flores

    INNOVARE LATAM

  • 0 in reply to LINCK

    Hi,

    I cross verified some of the URL categorization and they are correctly categorized under Sexually explicit group. If you have a list of domain and URL(s) noted in a notepad file, create a new web filter category and import the text file. One incorrect categorization that I discovered was for the website referred in your screenshot. I have reported the incorrect categorization.

    Thanks