SSP.exe creating lots of traffic

Hi,

I've recently noticed these too since upgrading to 10.6.3 on 12 April. FW logs were being flooded with these dropped connection attempts.

I logged a call and was told to disable the "Sophos System Protection Service" on a machine to see if it stopped, it did. I then received the reply at the end of this post. Just waiting to hear what the actual risks are of not allowing this traffic before I make the decision.

I also got the following information about ssp.exe:
Sophos System Protection, a new component installed in 10.6.3) uses HTTPS to perform lookups to Amazon-hosted Web servers in order to determine if processes that are connecting to external IPs/URLs/etc. without using a browser are talking to Command and Control servers. If they are, the process is quarantined and if need be, terminated. You can see the FAQ for Malicious Traffic Detection here: https://www.sophos.com/en-us/support/knowledgebase/121607.aspx
 

"Hello,

Since these machines do not have direct access to the internet, I would recommend disabling the Sophos System Protection service across your environment, as it doesn't seem like this feature will be usable unless you make some significant changes to your network.

If in the future you do want to enable this feature, you'll have to whitelist the domains referenced in here:

https://www.sophos.com/fr-fr/support/knowledgebase/117936.aspx

You'll also have to the Whitelist the Sophos Live Protect and Sophos System Protection Processes. 

Let me know if you have any further questions! 

Regards,"

On these computers without internet access, what about adding the addresses to the hosts file?

C:\ProgramData\Sophos\Sophos System Protection\Config\SXA.conf references:

https://4.sophosxl.net/lookup

C:\ProgramData\Sophos\Sophos System Protection\Config\FBA.conf references:

https://ssp.feedback.sophos.com/ssp/v1/

so "C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts" could be updated with:

127.0.0.1  4.sophosxl.net

127.0.0.1  ssp.feedback.sophos.com

Regards,

Jak

No, our products will be connecting to the domains listed, not directly to Amazon EC host-names. 

What you might be seeing is your Firewall inspecting the connection, seeing the IP the client is connecting to, performing a reverse lookup and the reverse lookup giving an EC compute hostname?

Similar to:

Hi,

Sure. Will PM you now.

Paul

Hi Craig,

Thank you very much for all of that information. The query about disabling it has been born from the SSP service being blamed for causing performance issues through our Firewall so we wanted to be ready to disable it if necessary. We fully understand why it is needed and don't want to disable it but we were close to being asked to.

I would just like to mention that we are also seeing the SSP service contacting AmazonWS addresses in our FW logs so would also be interested in anything you can determine from Paul's FW logs.

Thanks again

Hi Craig,

To return to the 4.sophosxl.net address returning as an Amazon AWS address, I get the following from an nslookup on our web filter:

"DNS Lookup for 4.sophosxl.net (4.sophosxl.net) returns:    54.246.172.45    52.50.177.117    52.51.158.42    52.30.113.180    52.30.190.178    52.48.62.119    54.76.67.12    52.18.100.124"

When I use MXToolbox.com to reverse lookup all of those IP addresses, they all come back as an amazonaws.com address.

Similarly when I complete a DNS Lookup on MXtoolbox.com on "4.sophosxl.net" it returns completely different IP addresses:

Is this all correct?

Thanks

Martin

That's all correct, it's a massive load balanced system, so it will return multiple AWS addresses.

Best,

Craig

Hi Craig,

Sorry I thought you had said that these weren't actually Amazon addresses previously. So are you confirming that the sophosxl.net service is a load balanced system hosted on Amazon AWS servers?

Is there a particular range or list of IP addresses that Sophos use for this? We have found that some of them are blocked by our web filtering software as it thinks they are a "peer-to-peer" connection.

Thanks

Martin

I am slowly getting angry.. another two days without any helpful update on this bug.

I this the way Sophos cares for custumers? Especially in this case where the bug ist caused by a sophos antivirus product update

in combination with an other sophos product (UTM) . Our companys suffers from an absolutely wrecked proxy, an there is literally no

useful help... seriusly WTF? 

Hi, I PM'd you last week - I haven't had a reply.

How is the state of investigation? Can you confirm that this is a Proxy bug?

Do you have found  a solution for your environment? We are in the similar situation (the proxy server with authentication) and going to  disable ssp.exe via GPO

Do you have found  a solution for your environment? We are in the similar situation (the proxy server with authentication) and going to  disable ssp.exe via GPO

The only real solution would be a hotfix by Sophps for this  bug. But Sophos support is quite horrible as it seems they dont really care. We have been told to disable SSP or to rollback to an older Sophos release ^^.  What helped a litte was to redirect the traffic to the WAF by using a WPAD Proxy config. Seems to bee less cpu sonsuming if the WAF recieves the packages, but still not a suitabble solution in any way.

What I don't understand is, why isn't Sophos at least using the systems proxy settings?
Sophos should implement the whole thing into the enterprise console and make it downloadable like the CIDs.
Or better the message router forwards it to the server and the server asks for the information via proxy and send the reply back to the client. 
Requesting direct internet Access for something like this just plain stupid and I don't think that is suitable for ANY business customers.
Blocking ssp.exe via GPO is another thing. Manually manipulating the services of a security suite?
THIS IS SOMETHING ONE SHOULD MANAGE THROUGH A GUI AKA (SEC).

Hi,

I too fail to understand why any company selling to business customers would expect them to punch holes in their perimeter security,or place major additional load on firewalls/UTMs by using dynamic objects just to make their products work. I really hope Sophos does not join the likes of Adobe in this respect. By all means move services to the cloud, but make sure you support secure access to them. Rant over!

I'd now like to update the community on the latest from my support case on this issue:

Hello Paul,

This case has been escalated to myself for further investigation.

This is a known issue currently with development and will be fixed in an update later in the year (after Sept).   Sophos suggest the following to reduce/stop the traffic hitting the firewall.
 
  1. Open up the firewall to allow connections to 4.sophosxl.net
  2. Add a local DNS record to deny access to 4.sophosxl.net and ssp.feedback.sophos.com
  3. Add a local host entry for 4.sophosxl.net and ssp.feedback.sophos.com to point to 127.0.0.1    (this would need to be on every endpoint)

As long as the SXL4 request receives a valid response (a deny or block will count as a valid response) it will stop sending the request every 30 seconds i would recommend as a short term fix that you look at setting a DNS record to allow these through

I then asked if the fix would make the SSP.exe traffic use the locally configured NTLM proxy and got the following reply:

 I am afraid I am not sure how this fix is going to be implemented as of yet however I believe they are going to force the policy to apply whether the sxl lookup goes through or not. Once its succeeds on this lookup it should  continue using NTLM its just the initial connection which appears to be the issue.

Just a shame that we cannot make use of the new security features of Sophos Endpoint and will rely on the old IDE files for now.

The Endpoint "Web Protection/Web Control" feature has always adhered to the client proxy settings supporting NTLM along the way, so they can do it. Hopefully after the fix, the new SSP features will too.