Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

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

WAF issues after updating to 9.709-3

Hi,

anyone else noticed that after updating to 9.709-3 Exchange Web Services is not working anymore? We get HTTP Error 500 when connecting to EWS published trhrough WAF. Also, the virtual server changes to orange when this error occurs. Accessing EWS through the browser shows the service page after authentication, but when interacting with EWS by using the Exchange Remote Connectivity Analyzer or EWS Editor generates the HTTP 500 error and the WAF rule turns orange.

When directly connecting to EWS and bypassing UTM works fine and we can interact with EWS.

Before the update everything worked fine.

Franc.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • We finally got a response from Sophos support, but not the one we wanted:

    We've received the following feedback from our Dev and PM teams:

    The issue that the customer encountered is related to some custom extensions to the HTTP protocol that Microsoft started using. It seems like these were not always critical, so many customers found that WAF still worked even though we could not support these extensions. However, with the recent necessary changes to Apache on the UTM, it seems like we've run out of leeway there.

    The solution to this would require us to substantially re-write the WAF code to handle these Microsoft-specific protocol extensions, which does not seem to happen in the near future.

    This is a Feature Request as confirmed and you can post an idea on this portal for the requirement: https://ideas.sophos.com/, where, the concerned teams actively look for requirements reported by users and take further decisions based on the volume impacted.
      

    As Technical Support does not follow up on feature requests, your case will be closed.  If you wish to have more information about a feature request, please contact your Reseller or local Sales Engineer. 

Reply
  • We finally got a response from Sophos support, but not the one we wanted:

    We've received the following feedback from our Dev and PM teams:

    The issue that the customer encountered is related to some custom extensions to the HTTP protocol that Microsoft started using. It seems like these were not always critical, so many customers found that WAF still worked even though we could not support these extensions. However, with the recent necessary changes to Apache on the UTM, it seems like we've run out of leeway there.

    The solution to this would require us to substantially re-write the WAF code to handle these Microsoft-specific protocol extensions, which does not seem to happen in the near future.

    This is a Feature Request as confirmed and you can post an idea on this portal for the requirement: https://ideas.sophos.com/, where, the concerned teams actively look for requirements reported by users and take further decisions based on the volume impacted.
      

    As Technical Support does not follow up on feature requests, your case will be closed.  If you wish to have more information about a feature request, please contact your Reseller or local Sales Engineer. 

Children
  • This begs two questions:

    a) Is this handled correctly in XG? (Honestly, either a "yes" and a "no" here has different negative implications when you think about it)
    b) Is this handled correctly in other solutions (FortiNet or SonicWall)?

  • In XG/XGS it is way easier to configure a non-WAF Policy for server from O365, as everything is policy-based.

  • Wait, what? The issue I'm facing isn't O365 related...

  • Oh lol, I thought it was only related to Exchange Online trying to connect to on-premise Exchange Servers protected though WAF for mailbox migration, etc.

  • For me it's just accessing certain operations on our DevOps server. Certain actions, when performed using the public URL (as opposed to the local LAN address) fail with the exact same errors as originally described (like, say, accessing the DevOps TFS will fail when using a public URL). All of this seems to be somehow tied to authentication (DevOps, underneath, sees the requests as unauthorized), but if that is really the issue or why that is... well, that's why I've opened a case with Sophos...

  • Alright, but I think the Sophos response above is about the Microsoft issue regarding Exchange Online. Maybe you DevOps has a simillar problem, but I think the answer was just posted under the wrong subthread.

  • I find this answer unbelievable to be honest. If something worked before (be it intentionally or not) it's strange that now all of a sudden Sophos doesn't support EWS anymore without any warning. It isn't mentioned anywhere that EWS through WAF wasn't supported before. Now when it doesn't work anymore due to changes to Apache, Sophos states bad luck you are on your own. We as customers have to find a different solution now. We already solved it by using our Kemp loadbalancer to do the WAF for EWS, but not every customer has that option.

    They even have a KB article where they show how to configure EWS through WAF.

    Way to go Sophos :-(



    .
    [edited by: FrancWest at 10:39 AM (GMT -7) on 29 Apr 2022]
  • Exactly this! This is unacceptable.

    Basically the answer from support means, that they won't fix NUTM-13425 because they would have to rewrite the WAF code, however they converted this issue into a feature request...because...you know...it is UTM...and we listen to your needs and requests....lulz

    Clearly there was no further development since years and therefore implementing this "feature request" will never happen.
    Support playing funny games right here!

    But, I think I did not miss a notice about retiring the UTM until now. So it still is a fully supported device.
    And this device got crippled with an update.
    So you should get your hands dirty rewriting that code.

    EWS functionality is part of UTM as stated in KB support.sophos.com/.../KB-000038003

  • What custom data was this Sophos?, sounds like a fob to me as all other firewalls running Apache seem to be OK.  Do you have the specifics?  When did Microsoft start using this customer extension 2010/2013/2016 or 2019?   where is this documented as I can't find anything on the internet.  Well it was nice whilst it lasted, now have to go fully over to Pfsense now.  Will be letting all my customers know this won't be fixed so more revenue lost.

  • No, I don’t have any more details. The statement I posted was the only one we got.