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

  • I too am looking forward to v17.

     

    -Ron

  • 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 

  • As BillyBob pointed, XG is lacking essential functionality that any chinese 100 dollar router has (and worse, that UTM has had for years). XG is also not even in the same ballpark as being feature-parity and usability-parity with UTM.

     

    i'll see what v17 brings but from the foreword, it will still not be enough, maybe in v18 or v19 i can remotely think of it as a replacement for UTM, until then(until every 100% functionality that UTM has has been ported) nope, never

  •  thanks for sharing screenshots.

    Please make sure to update features on ideas.sophos.com as soon you have clue they will be implemented. As other users wrote here, many basic features are missing. You have improved log into v17 (as we can see from screenshot) but the "old" flow monitor from UTM9 is something very missing on XG. Live connections is useless.

    Bridging is another pain! XG does not work well when it is deployed as a bridge. There is even a thread where we tried to collect of unhappiness of XG with v16. https://community.sophos.com/products/xg-firewall/sophos-xg-beta-programs/v16beta/f/sfos-v16-beta-feedback/78908/v16-what-is-still-missing

    Binding service to single IP and not to zone is another pain. Customers with multiple ISP want to enable only VPN on one connection and not on both and so on....

    AFAIK you are working hard internally and all of your efforts are on XG but you have to understand that basic features such those are very BASIC and must be integrated ASAP.

    My compliments to getting XG more stable since v16.05 MR1. [Y]

  • While I agree that XG isn't production ready yet, I also feel that we should acknowledge the potential in the product.

    I really love the new UI and I also prefer the new configuration approach after using it for some time. I also love the ease of remote access which I don't see in too many other products. For example, I got to test the hyped Cisco Meraki MX appliance. While it is super easy to configure, it doesn't offer much features or configuration options in general. As such, it turned out to be a product I might like to use in a home environment, but I wouldn't be able to use it in a corporate environment even though it comes at much higher pricing point!

    For all fairness, I have to acknowledge that Sophos came forward and openly said that the next version of XG isn't quite ready yet. I also love the community and direct access to the development team. I don't see that anywhere else.

    So, we should treat XG as a new product with great potential for which Sophos might take input from us. Meanwhile, we can still use the outstanding Sophos SG solution for production environments.

    I mean I also love to see new products quicker, but I personally prefer quality over speed. We are still using Sophos SG to secure our corporate systems and it has been working for us without fail for almost 10 years now. Quite frankly, I would be challenged to name another software product or appliance with the same track record.

    Just my two cents...

  • Agree with you 100% on the SG/UTM track record, however, since the acquisition of cyberoam, it has been on the back burner while most of the energy is being spent on XG. This is what I can't wrap my head around. A new UTM 10 with modernized gui and updated daemons would still have been easier to develop than cyberoam.

    I think since the original astaro team was german, the lure of cost savings using cyberoam development team probably ended up biting them in the end. They have recovered somewhat in the last few months, but the first couple of years of XG have been agonizing to say the least.

  • I agree. I think the vision of XG is great, but it seems that it would have been better to keep the German development team... I also feel that Cyberoam was more a concept than an actual product.

    I am guessing it is all about long-term strategy and we don't get to see that. Can't blame them though. With all the competition, they need to keep their long-term cards close.

    Anyhow, let's hope that v17 will be a step in the right direction. I personally would prefer quality over quantity when it comes to new features.

  • At the risk of getting flamed off this board, I think one's perspective on XG depends very much on where one comes from.  I arrived to the Sophos world back in March from Meraki MX firewalls, after we got an XG210.  Personally I think XG is a very good product, it has a huge number of features and capabilities over the Meraki firewalls we just came from for a cheaper price.  In fact, XG functions very closely (and will get even closer in v17 based on what I see and read here) to the way Microsoft's ISA/TMG product worked, so for me, having come from ISA/TMG, I feel XG to be very familiar and natural and love what Sophos is doing vs. the UTM product.  I freely admit that it has some rough edges, it has some inexplicably missing features (no VLAN tagging, and no DHCPv6 PD in 2017 are you kidding me?), and logging is poor.  But then again, everything has flaws.  I get that when XG was released with version 15 it was probably better described as a 1.0 product and maybe the messaging was unclear and so some UTM people dove in thinking it was an "upgrade" and then were sorely disappointed, and even into v16 the perception is that it still isn't "complete" but overall I'm happy with it and believe in Alan and the team that they are going to deliver a homerun with v17.  The nearly monthly maintenance releases, IMO, demonstrate a commitment to quality and progress.

    I have observed that people who come from the Astaro/UTM product tend to be highly critical of the XG in general and believe the UTM is superior in all ways and the XG is just a waste of resources and a folly by Sophos.  I am not qualified to know if the UTM is truly vastly superior in every way, as many claim, since I have never used it, but browsing the UTM forum seems to reveal it also deals with its own problems (the recent UTM Active Directory SSO bug comes to mind), and even those are blamed on XG (Sophos is "diverting resources" away from UTM to XG). 

    I don't know, to be sure there are fair criticisms of XG to be had, but it just feels like it takes an unfair amount of beating at times because its not something that it was never intended to be. 

  • Hi Bill,

    a number of us UTM fans have joined and used the XG to learn what the new way of thinking is for firewalls and add our experience to the testing.

    As you said the XG does have some features that the UTM does not have and one is the ability to scan imap mail messages.

    Some of the functions are much easier to configure than on the UTM. Further to what you said it depends on where you come from as to whether you think the XG is a good well featured product.

    I am currently using the XG latest release as my main firewall, I have UTM as a backup about to be rebuilt due to hardware issues

    I look forward to the v17 release and wish it would happen soon to stop the continued speculation.

    Ian