Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.

wrx7m

I run a Sophos SG-210 here (for the past 2.5 years) and am gun shy on updates because I have seen them break more than they fix. I am seriously considering moving to ubnt next year. The interface on the 9.x UTM version is really easy to learn and use. I really only use a few features. Namely, the routing/firewall, gateway AV, proxy and IDS. I tried application control (for throttling Youtube) but it never worked correctly and that was when we only had a 10/10 Mbps connection. Now we have 150/150 so it is less of an issue.

travisdh1

@scottalanmiller said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@storageninja said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@travisdh1 said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

I got an email this week about the Sophos renewal, which is only $300.00 more per year in maintenance than replacing it with Ubiquiti gear with no maintenance cost, and was renewed the month before I came on staff.

Oh the joys of IT.

The Sophos gear does IDS, load balancing and a ton of other fun things that Uniquity doesn't do....

Also hearing support and reliability issues that UBNT doesn't have

The Sophos AV broke the presentation application they were moving to, just for a little icing on the cake.

Ubiquiti does load balancing last I checked. Granted it doesn't do IDS, but that's something easily covered by other open source things.

I almost forgot the microserver without a hypervisor installed. Makes me wonder about the state of IT in general

dbeato

Sorry to hear that man! I don't know which industry are you in but that usually is the determination of what you need.

scottalanmiller

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

I run a Sophos SG-210 here (for the past 2.5 years) and am gun shy on updates because I have seen them break more than they fix. I am seriously considering moving to ubnt next year. The interface on the 9.x UTM version is really easy to learn and use. I really only use a few features. Namely, the routing/firewall, gateway AV, proxy and IDS. I tried application control (for throttling Youtube) but it never worked correctly and that was when we only had a 10/10 Mbps connection. Now we have 150/150 so it is less of an issue.

This is what I keep hearing... slow, expensive, and fragile.

wrx7m

@scottalanmiller - Do the Ubiquiti Edge Routers have the network, host and service definitions approach to ACLs, like SonicWall, Sophos, etc?

JaredBusch

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@scottalanmiller - Do the Ubiquiti Edge Routers have the network, host and service definitions approach to ACLs, like SonicWall, Sophos, etc?

NO, because it is not a IDS/IPS/UTM device.

wrx7m

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

JaredBusch

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

Key features? What key features? Those are fairly useless feature IMO.

Dashrender

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

Sure - but the definitions you listed do make a difference.

i.e. Edge OS calls out ports and IPs, that's all.

wrx7m

@jaredbusch said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

Key features? What key features? Those are fairly useless feature IMO.

Only key in that you mentioned them, specifically, in response to my question.

JaredBusch

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

Key features? What key features? Those are fairly useless feature IMO.

Only key in that you mentioned them, specifically, in response to my question.

You named IDS/IPS/UTM devices and asked if Ubiquiti was feature parity. I said no.

wrx7m

@jaredbusch Right but my question was related to ACLs, not IDS/IPS.

jmoore

@jaredbusch said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch - I didn't think that those key features made the difference in terms of user interface and usability.

Key features? What key features? Those are fairly useless feature IMO.

Those features were popular in older devices right but not really needed in modern ones correct?

StorageNinja

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch Right but my question was related to ACLs, not IDS/IPS.

Did they have compliance requirements that would drive IDS/IPS? Honestly, I wouldn't deploy an office network without some sort of layer 7 edge inspection. Users are just too dumb...

wrx7m

@storageninja I don't have compliance requirements and I just asking about the definitions-based ACL because it makes sense and I prefer it over lines of IPs and networks.

JaredBusch

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch Right but my question was related to ACLs, not IDS/IPS.

Then you need to define what you are after. Of course the firewall uses rules. There is not a firewall in existence that does not.

Here are the firewall rules currently in my ERL at home.

jbusch@jared# show firewall 
 all-ping enable
 broadcast-ping disable
 group {
     address-group Strongarm.io {
         address 54.174.40.213
         address 52.3.100.184
         description ""
     }
 }
 ipv6-receive-redirects disable
 ipv6-src-route disable
 ip-src-route disable
 log-martians enable
 name LAN_IN {
     default-action accept
     description "Wired and Wireless LAN to Internet"
     rule 2 {
         action reject
         description "Block Port 25"
         destination {
             port 25
         }
         log enable
         protocol tcp
     }
 }
 name LAN_LOCAL {
     default-action accept
     description "Wired and Wireless LAN to Router"
 }
 name WAN_IN {
     default-action drop
     description "WAN to internal"
     rule 10 {
         action accept
         description "Allow established/related"
         state {
             established enable
             related enable
         }
     }
     rule 20 {
         action drop
         description "Drop invalid state"
         state {
             invalid enable
         }
     }
 }
 name WAN_LOCAL {
     default-action drop
     description "WAN to router"
     rule 10 {
         action accept
         state {
             established enable
             related enable
         }
     }
     rule 20 {
         action drop
         log enable
         state {
             invalid enable
         }
     }
     rule 30 {
         action accept
         description "Allow Pings to Router"
         limit {
             burst 1
             rate 62/minute
         }
         log enable
         protocol icmp
     }
     rule 40 {
         action accept
         description "Allow IPSEC"
         ipsec {
             match-ipsec
         }
         log disable
         protocol all
         state {
             established disable
             invalid disable
             new enable
             related disable
         }
     }
 }
 name WAN_OUT {
     default-action accept
     description ""
     rule 1 {
         action accept
         description "Allows Strongarm.io DNS"
         destination {
             group {
                 address-group Strongarm.io
             }
             port 53
         }
         log disable
         protocol udp
         state {
             established enable
             invalid disable
             new enable
             related disable
         }
     }
     rule 2 {
         action drop
         description "Block all DNS"
         destination {
             port 53
         }
         log enable
         protocol udp
         state {
             established enable
             invalid enable
             new enable
             related enable
         }
     }
 }

wrx7m

@jaredbusch I know firewalls use rules. In Sophos and Sonicwall and others, I'm sure, you can define a host, network and service and call it something like ServerA and drag and drop the hosts/ip address, services and networks to create the rules.

wrx7m

@storageninja said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch Right but my question was related to ACLs, not IDS/IPS.

Did they have compliance requirements that would drive IDS/IPS? Honestly, I wouldn't deploy an office network without some sort of layer 7 edge inspection. Users are just too dumb...

The modern argument against proxy and IDS/IPS is that you have to set it up so that your proxy device is the man in the middle and decrypts and encrypts everything again.

scottalanmiller

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@storageninja said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@wrx7m said in Arg! The money spent the month before I stated here.:

@jaredbusch Right but my question was related to ACLs, not IDS/IPS.

Did they have compliance requirements that would drive IDS/IPS? Honestly, I wouldn't deploy an office network without some sort of layer 7 edge inspection. Users are just too dumb...

The modern argument against proxy and IDS/IPS is that you have to set it up so that your proxy device is the man in the middle and decrypts and encrypts everything again.

That was an old argument, too

wrx7m

@scottalanmiller Right, but now almost everything is HTTPS.