We'd love to hear about it! Click here to go to the product suggestion community
Version 9.508 is released:
Maybe we could collect some reports about problems or hopefully no problems. Maybe please tell us about the modules (Network, Web, WAF, Mail, WLAN..) you use if you successful updated to 9.508.
P.S. With the production system, I'll wait a little bit ;-)
Changed my smtp exim
In reply to oldeda:
What changed, Olsi?
After 2 days on 9.508, no problems seen yet with Firewall, NAT, Routing, Web Filtering, Wireless & SMTP Proxy.
Cheers - Bob
In reply to BAlfson:
Editet the exim for some tweaks, but i had a backup.
Not a big deal
Since 9,508 the digital signature is considered invalid for emails. However, I don't know if this is an error in email-encrption.
PS: outgoing Emails...
In reply to ThorstenSult:
which client do you use to check the signature, Outlook?
Thorsten, if you follow the KB article that MBP posted above, deleting and regenerating your S/MIME cert on the 'Internal Users' tab of 'Encryption', does this error still appear after you've sent a signed or encrypted email?
It doesn't matter which email client (Thunderbird, Outlook...) I had already completely reset the CA and re-configured the certificates. The error still exists. I have a SMTP dump for analysis. I'm still waiting for an answer from the support.
I dont know if that was before.
I just put Email Verification with AD. But the rejected Notification says Address Not Found in Active Directory
I think the notification must be something else, not to let everyone to see that I have an AD
Unfortunately I can confirm, that a even with a V9.508 CA created and signed message will lead to an error at the recipient site.
In reply to Markus S.:
What error does the recipient see, Markus - a picture, maybe?
If the recipient uses f.e. thunderbird he will get:
Some recipient bounce our mails and return: the digital signature is invalid.
To be clear: email encryption does not work for us since updating to V9.508! That's awful. We have about 450 email encryption users an use sophos generated certificates.
On a 2nd utm whith V9.508 I tested to reset email encryption, created a new ca and created a new user. -> Same error.
In my opinion the statement in kb 131727 is wrong: "Note: You do not have to regenerate the certs to get S/MIME working. The new engine will work fine without deleting and regenerating certificates. Correcting the SHA1 vulnerability requires certificate regeneration, which will require the users to be deleted and re-added"
I have revoked my S/Mime and applied again with stonger key. Then I set it up in the email encryption. The error still exists. The signature is invalid for the recipient. I´m still waiting for an answer from the support.
Running with it since the soft-release.
I thin aI see an increased memory usage from the http proxy, anyone seeing this?
810 9345 33.9 36.9 1812024 1484612 ? Ssl 20:40 0:33 /var/chroot-http/usr/bin/httpproxy -f -c /var/chroot-http -u httpprHaving 4gb memory in the appliance and it's a 88%, when I shutdown http proxy it moved to 41%.Only my private servers are behind and no throughput to talt about :-)(Runnning on old UTM 320 appliance with SSD)Regards Martin
In reply to twister5800:
I notice that it takes a lot more when it starts httpproxy, Martin, but I have the same device on 9.508 and httpproxy is at 16%.