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 126252 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
  • 0 in reply to Guripa Mayor

    This thread is covering two different issues.

    1) The initial main issue seems to be a case where some people were getting no category when in fact the sites had been correctly categorized.  I was not involved in the follow-up but I am guessing this was a configuration or connectivity issue.

    2) Some people are using this thread to generally report incorrect categorization.

     

    Now as far as I know the initial problem 1) has been resolved.

    In the case of 2) then I suggest that if you want to discuss categorization feel free to do it here (or start a new thread).  But if you are just reporting then here is the better place to do it:  secure2.sophos.com/.../contact-support.aspx  Click "Submit a Sample".

     


    You may note that Sophos has three web products - the SWA, the SG UTM, and the XG UTM.  All three actually use different sets of categories that come from different sources.  The main reason for this is history and the pain of having administrators change their policies if we change the list of categories.  One of the things we do is check top hits and do a three-way comparison.  If two of the three categorizations say one thing and the third says another, we mark it as needing re-analysis.  However if all three come up with different answers then we don't - which is actually the case at least two of the sites in ITSUITSU's post.  In order to prioirize work, we use the websites that are more commonly hit by our customers first, and we concentrate more on the commonly blocked sites such as malware.

    There are the following challenges
    A) We have a database of millions of categorized sites.  Some may be wrong.  Comparison with others and customer reports help identify.
    B) There are 571 new websites created every MINUTE.  We have to concentrate on the sites our customers visit most often.
    C) Automated analysis tools have to be used to handle the workload, with fallback to humans.  They may be good at analyzing some things (this is a forum) and not others (the forum is discussing white power, which is a higher priority categorization).

    Needless to say, we're doing the best we can.

  • 0 in reply to Michael Dunn

    I had brought up this thread as an exapmple of spam on the sophos board when talking to robert lanson earlier this year. I think some people are posting genuine concerns but others with only ONE POST are using it to advertise pornography. A MOD should lock the thread.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Michael Dunn

    I had brought up this thread as an exapmple of spam on the sophos board when talking to robert lanson earlier this year. I think some people are posting genuine concerns but others with only ONE POST are using it to advertise pornography. A MOD should lock the thread.

Children