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

XG v17: what's coming next

Hi Everyone, 

You're all overdue for an update on current and next steps, so I wanted to take some time to share a brief update. Since v16 launched last year, we've seen a huge increase in deployments worldwide! It's great to see that the feedback and effort you've provided has really been helpful to shape a successful v16 launch! Thank you to everyone who has used XG, and shared your feedback. It's been immensely valuable, and a big factor in the success thus far.

We've also launched v16.05 (Also called 16.5 sometimes, by lazy people like me..) which closed off the last high-level feature gap between XG and UTM9. I've seen some questions on why this release didn't contain more, so I'll take a moment to go over why we released only what we did.

Earlier in 2016, we launched Sophos Sandstorm on both UTM9 and Sophos Web Appliance, to MUCH greater success than we had initially expected. This resulted in far greater demand to launch it on XG, and left us with a tough choice. We could delay v16 significantly, or leave Sandstorm until v17, as originally planned. We believed that delaying v16 by even a few more months, would have caused significant problems for our existing XG partners, and waiting until v17 to launch Sandstorm was just too far out. With that in mind, we looked at what it would cost to deliver Sandstorm sooner. Our web and email teams were already going to begin working on Sandstorm as soon as they finished with v16, so if we limited the features in a release to just Sandstorm, a 16.05 release was possible, without causing a meaningful delay to v17. If we included more features, quality testing would take too long. With this in mind, we decided to launch a highly focused 16.05 release, dedicated to delivering Sophos Sandstorm by end of December. This would get 16 out when it was needed, and also get Sandstorm out close enough to the 16 launch, that we could reduce the problems caused by 16 not having it. So far, the decision has proven to be justified, as the launch of 16.05 has significantly accelerated the already fast growing v16. This sort of smaller feature release, on a fast timetable, isn't something we normally want to do - but in this case, the circumstances called for it.  

While our web and email teams were working on v16.05, the rest of our teams began working on v17, and we're marching towards a beta start around April or May. I can't go into too much detail on all of it just yet, but here are some if the highlights of what you can expect:

  • Troubleshooting and Visibility
    • Improved log viewer v2 - Unified view of all log sources, better filtering and searching, improved readability and display of log contents, unified view of live and historical logs
    • Improved Log Retention - Persistent storage of logs, retained for 1-2 weeks, to improve troubleshooting issues that are days old
    • More insightful log contents - firewall logs will now log meaningful reasons for "invalid" packet drops, web logs will include more details for troubleshooting
    • Rich Policy Test - Enter criteria to check,such as source, destination, user, etc.. and find out what firewall rule will allow or block it, what policies will be applied, and for web traffic, a full analysis of what rule within the web policy will be matched, and what action will be shown to the user
  • Firewall Rule Management - sliimer layout, custom grouping, cool design
  • IPsec VPN engine Improvements - IKEv2, Suite-B protocols, Reliability Upgrades
  • NAT Business rule improvements - Object based, more familiar to UTM9 users, more powerful
  • Synchronized Security - changing game for application control
  • Email - UX Improvements, Spam improvements, Outbound relay
  • Web - streaming improvements, faster content filtering
  • Zero-touch firewall deployments (not strictly part of v17, but part of a parallel project)
  • Licensing and Registration- more usable, less mandatory

This forum has a heavy hand in what shapes our roadmap, but it isn't the only source. For example I and other PMs have frequent calls with customers and partners, and even competitor's customers and partners. Usability study participants, Sophos support, and ideas.sophos.com, also contribute valuable feedback. Quite often these sources are at odds with the community feedback. It rarely differs in whether a feature is desirable or not, but it often differs in importance, and we have to factor all of it into our planning. 

I mention this, because I know that after reading the above list, there will be immediate questions about "what about feature X?", or "Why not feature Y?". To that, I say:

  • If we're not doing it in v17, we're more than likely still planning it, but the order of priority might might be different than you prefer
  • Some of you will disagree with one feature being chosen over another, and perhaps even disagree very strongly. Just know that this doesn't mean we're ignoring your feedback. The majority of the features and focus of v17 are driven by requests coming from these forums. We're listening!
  • The above list isn't exhaustive, or detailed. What you're looking for might still be planned for v17, but I can't outline all the details just yet. Stay tuned for the start of beta.

Finally, I want to call out a group of features I know you're going to ask about. Renaming/disabling interfaces, and other objects. It's obviously important, and highly desired in the community. Some more enabling/disabling options may be added in v17, but not interfaces, and there won't be improvements in what you can rename just yet, either. I know it's a big annoyance for some of you not have those features, but we need to do it right. (Bring on your apple, copy/paste analogies.. :) ) I worked with the teams to see if we could come up with a plan that included at least interface enabling/disabling in v17, but it wasn't practical. There are hidden costs, that aren't obvious, and there are also other projects in the works, that will significantly reduce those costs. At the risk of being too much of a tease in this post, we have a plan to implements enable/disable, renaming, and many other ui usability niceties everywhere. It depends on completing a project that's been in the works for a while, that I can't discuss just yet. Rest assured, it's all coming, and you're going to like the results! Be patient, and stay tuned!

Best Regards,

Alan Toews

Sr. Product Manager, XG Firewall

 

 

 

One last tease.. 

     



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Will there finally be an accurate live bandwidth view to see which users \ IP hosts are using data ?  ie Mikrotik's 'torch' 

  • AndrewMillard said:

    Will there finally be an accurate live bandwidth view to see which users \ IP hosts are using data ?  ie Mikrotik's 'torch' 

    This is what is so frustrating about XG and I can imagine the prioritization that  has to do on which features need attention right away.

    For example: My old Asus Rt68U that I bought almost 3 years ago as a play toy for the gigabit connection I was getting can:

    1. Use any port for open VPN while XG still cannot.

    2. Has live bandwidth showing which appliance is using how much bandwidth and the total bandwidth being used. I can then control each of those devices right there from the live screen and use sfq, codel, or fq_codel by providing my own limits on either the clients or my total bandwidth. While XG has great granular QoS control, who is using what kind of bandwidth or assigning bandwidth to the interfaces in multi wan configurations is missing.

    So while some of us are asking for the basics that even a 150 dollar router has been providing since 2014, other users are asking about more business related stuff like ikev2, improved vlans, enhanced MTA etc. Plus sophos wants to add their own stuff on top to improve their return on investment. That's how we ended up with XG v16.

    Don't get me wrong, an arm processor based router is not a substitute for a business class intel UTM, but its interesting to see the limits being pushed. Also, to be fair, the MR releases have been coming at a steady pace and the base system has been improving greatly. This gives me hope that sophos is finally getting serious about XG as a contender and not just another firewall with hype.

    While v17 won't satisfy everyone, I am hoping that all the quirks have been fixed by now and we will have a stable, fast, and dependable firewall that is easy to work with and easy to troubleshoot. How successful is sophos in delivering a quality release? We'll all find out soon enough...

    Regards 

  • I'ts great to see so much interest in the upcoming beta :) A couple clarifications:

    JensStraten said:
    I think the vision of XG is great, but it seems that it would have been better to keep the German development team...

    We haven't gotten rid of them. Our German office is still alive and well, and has many devs working on XG. 

    bill-roland said:
    no VLAN tagging

    To clarify, XG supports VLAN tagging. The two feature limits with VLANs are that VLANs aren't supported on a bridge, and VLAN ID 1 can't be set yet as a tagged VLAN. 

    Once we get closer to the end of beta, I'll lay out a bit more of the roadmap and future plans and vision for the firewall. For now, I'll say to those who are affected by "the basics", as you say, we get it. There are a few smaller features that we absolutely need to add, because they are rather obvious limits. Product planning is a bit like an iceberg, though. Only a small percentage of what's in the works is visible. Unlike the iceberg, what you can't see is actually pretty exciting. Our plans aren't to replace every bit of functionality in UTM9. quite honestly, there's some pretty crappy features in there, along with all the good stuff. Through v16 & 16.5, our focus was first to close on the biggest sore spots, whether they were gaps with UTM9, or just areas we needed to improve. Second, to advance Synchronized Security, and third, to improve overall quality. (though not exactly in that order)

    several people said:
    XG isn't production ready

    We delivered on all of our v16.5 goals, though admittedly, getting the quality bar to where we wanted it took a little longer. We're soon going to release MR7, and at a bug and support-ability level, XG v16.5 is now the most successful firewall ever from Sophos. By every measure, XG is succeeding, and being recognized by the biggest industry analysts. It may not be perfect for everyone yet, but the proof is in. XG is production ready! 

    Looking forward to beta, and your feedback!

  • Hi Alan

     

    Can we except the beta to be released this week or the next?

    How do we join the beta program?

     

    regards

  • AlanT said:

     

    bill-roland
    no VLAN tagging

    To clarify, XG supports VLAN tagging. The two feature limits with VLANs are that VLANs aren't supported on a bridge, and VLAN ID 1 can't be set yet as a tagged VLAN. 

     

     

     

    We are also not able to use nested VLANs or QinQ (802.1ad) which has caused us some headaches recently. Even though we found a way to create these interfaces in the console they could not be made to show in the GUI and were not persistent. 

    We ended up having replace with a cheaper router that supports this. 

  • AlanT said:

    We delivered on all of our v16.5 goals, though admittedly, getting the quality bar to where we wanted it took a little longer. We're soon going to release MR7, and at a bug and support-ability level, XG v16.5 is now the most successful firewall ever from Sophos. By every measure, XG is succeeding, and being recognized by the biggest industry analysts. It may not be perfect for everyone yet, but the proof is in. XG is production ready! 

    Looking forward to beta, and your feedback!

     

    Hi Alan!

    Two questions:

    • When can we anticipate the v17 beta to start?  I'm greatly looking forward to testing.
    • I'm running Sophos XG at home currently and ran several other software firewalls in the past and found Sophos to be the most intuitive of the bunch.  At the moment, I'm on cable internet with 100mbps speeds, but Fiber is actually being deployed as we speak and am afraid that the limitations of Home may not allow me to fully utilize the gigabit speeds.  Are there any plans to possibly expand the resource limits from 4 CPUs and 6GB of RAM to something higher or perhaps allow us to pay a nominal yearly fee to drop the limits altogether for HOME use only?  Untangled currently does this ($50/yr), and while i prefer Sophos, I think it's a great idea to allow the home user to get a great firewall that (hopefully) everyone can afford.  I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

    Thanks again and keep up the good work!

  • Hi Aaron,

    for gigabit (lucky you) make sure your NICs are Intel (not 219) and you have a very fast 4 core CPU. Your memory usage will depend mainly on how many rules and users you have.

    Ian

  • rfcat_vk said:

    Hi Aaron,

    for gigabit (lucky you) make sure your NICs are Intel (not 219) and you have a very fast 4 core CPU. Your memory usage will depend mainly on how many rules and users you have.

    Ian

     

     

    Users or devices?  As I will have minimal users, but loads of devices (IoT, game consoles, servers, etc.).  Currently running on a little Qotom machine with i5 and Intel I211 NICs and cpu barely breaks a sweat with ~120mbps.

  •  

    thanks a lot for your reply. I am one of the guy who says that XG isn't production ready and I will try to even explain why:

    XG at the moment lacks on logging (v17 let's see) and even flow monitor is missing. Managing and understanding how the bandwidth is consumed at the moment is quite difficult (the sum of the total bandwidth does not work, it is incorrect). You cannot set different Upload and Download speed on WAN interfaces (Some Enterprises have backup connection where they use asymmetric connection). Anti-port scan???? Where is it? Even in Sophos there were some confusion if the anti-port scan was handled by IDS/IPS or not and then after a year the feature is not there....Email filtering? I am not using Email Filtering (I am still using UTM9, SEA and Pure Message) because on XG Email Filtring is almost useless. Limitation on exception creations, DKIM missing, multiple email domain managing, etc. VLAN? In some big configuration, Enterprise are not using VLAN 1 at all (for security reason) and on XG you cannot create VLAN if you do not set the native VLAN ID which cannot be changed from 1. CLI interface...it is quite confusing...sometimes commands are under show while show sometimes is an option for the command. Multiple Firewall. Concurrent are using their own technology (VDOM just to say one) and XG is not able to handle them (this is an Enterprise Feature I know!). Admin users cannot be changed. All the Enterprise Company change the default account to something else.

    The other section is what we have at the moment but cannot be changed or it is not working as expected (like fixed VPN SSL Port, OTP and CAA limitation, User Portal is lacking many features compared to UTM).

    So the list can be longer. As I said I personally appreciate what you have done since MR1 this year and you are pushing a lot but XG is still to be considered and studied before putting it in any big configuration or where the VLAN are the core of the business.

    Well done for NSS labs. This is a nice award but making customers happy and selling XG like water in the desert will be the satisfaction for you and all Sophos Partners. This is not a dream world but something possible in the next future.

    Regards

  • lferrara said:
    (like fixed VPN SSL Port,

    Sorry to say, but this will not be released in V17.0  See Statement of Alan  here: https://ideas.sophos.com/forums/330219-xg-firewall/suggestions/11145186-change-ssl-vpn-port

    I verified this statement with our contact, they said we shouldn't be expecting this feature in the next 6 month.

  • Hmm, interesting, I have the information no older than one month that the "problem" with the fixed SSL VPN port will be solved in v17 Beta using a specific workaround.

    We will see, perhaps it will not take long time .....

     

    alda

  • Huber,

    I did not write that ssl custom port will be a part of v17. Afaik into v17.5 ssl custom port will be added.

    Also consider that having a missing feature and having a change of it have different weight!

Reply Children