Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 10497 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

UTM to XG views?

Louis-M

I know this has probably been done to death on this forum but this morning, I decided to have another look at XG (v16)

The jury is still out for me. I know with all new OS's, that you can struggle to find your way around until you become used to them.

At this time, I'm not quite warming to XG but maybe that is me. I prefer the UTM obviously because I'm used to it.

So, from the experienced users who have switched over from UTM or maybe switched back to UTM, what are your thoughts?



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hi Louis,

    Well i have been a UTM user for 9 years (at work and home) and i have played with SFOS for around 1.5 year when it was in beta.. There's actually some really cool things in the SFOS product and i do in general like it now with version 16. It's has matured a lot since version 15, but there's still room for a lot of improvements.

    • In general it seems like SFOS is faster a processing packets
    • I have had some strange issues with traffic being dropped by the default drop rule in the firewall even though i had created rules to allow the traffic (I have also tried with an allow any any rule and it still showed up as dropped). The configuration was restored from a backup so there could be a bug in the restore process (Haven't seen it on my other SFOS installation)
    • Another strange issue of mine is creating a network object

     

    Here's my wishlist:

    1. Unified objects like in the UTM (This is a really strong feature on the UTM)
    2. NAT should have it's own tab under firewall, It's confusing to call it a non-http business rule, why not call it what it is?
    3. Make Country blocking easy to use with it's own tab like in the UTM
    4. The UTM interface would be a real killer for me, but that probably ain't going to happen :-)
    5. There's probably more

    I have turned to pfSense it home (Sorry Sophos)

Reply
  • 0

    Hi Louis,

    Well i have been a UTM user for 9 years (at work and home) and i have played with SFOS for around 1.5 year when it was in beta.. There's actually some really cool things in the SFOS product and i do in general like it now with version 16. It's has matured a lot since version 15, but there's still room for a lot of improvements.

    • In general it seems like SFOS is faster a processing packets
    • I have had some strange issues with traffic being dropped by the default drop rule in the firewall even though i had created rules to allow the traffic (I have also tried with an allow any any rule and it still showed up as dropped). The configuration was restored from a backup so there could be a bug in the restore process (Haven't seen it on my other SFOS installation)
    • Another strange issue of mine is creating a network object

     

    Here's my wishlist:

    1. Unified objects like in the UTM (This is a really strong feature on the UTM)
    2. NAT should have it's own tab under firewall, It's confusing to call it a non-http business rule, why not call it what it is?
    3. Make Country blocking easy to use with it's own tab like in the UTM
    4. The UTM interface would be a real killer for me, but that probably ain't going to happen :-)
    5. There's probably more

    I have turned to pfSense it home (Sorry Sophos)

Children
No Data