Sophos UTM 9.510-4 released - let's share experiences!

Hi Community,

Regarding the "Invalid request" issue while trying to access the mail manager:

• We are aware of some customers experiencing this minor intermittent issue.
• Workarounds to this include refreshing the page or clearing out the browser's cache.

If you are experiencing different symptoms or unable to resolve this issue via the workarounds above, please raise a support case and PM me with your support case number for followup.

Regards,

Edit 2018-11-13: see my post below with a workaround.

If you have not yet Up2Dated to 9.510-5, DON'T!!!!!!

Based on another thread here, I tested the [Download] buttons on the 'Internal Users' tab of 'Email >> Encryption' - they are ineffective - no download results.

After opening a Support ticket for that, I tested downloads elsewhere.  Apparently, the [Download] buttons in 'Certificate Management' depend on the same code.

I'll PM the case #s to Flo.

Cheers - Bob

hi Bob,

darn, I have just upgraded this morning! luckily the company does not use this feature.

Although I was prompted by Sophos support to update, this is due to an issue with the Geo IP DB (being out of date) and showing a Public IP the customer are using as Swiss.

This I know is an issue since April, the DB used is from Maxmind, and they [Maxmind] have confirmed that on April 1st this year the DB was deprecated for a newer version which Sophos has not yet updated.

Should this not be incorporated within a pattern update?

This does play havoc with Country blocking, as my router would effectively block itself .. lol 

currently (it seems) the QA for UTM updates is a little lax ...

EDIT

Have since found out that this is an issue with the product being used on the UTM, no known fix date for this :(, i have already found this out (one of my customers Public IPs shows up as Swiss, so country blocking may work some of the time but no guarantees)

on a more positive note - the upgrade wen without hitch, other than some users needing to clear their cache... 

oh sophos, what have you done....

UTM is a realy good product, much better than xg. please throw xg away and focus again on utm

My numer 1 Problem - Exchange 2016 with more than one real server via waf isn't fixed, since we migrated to this and this was a year in the past.
considering that now exchange 2019 comes out

Just released - some of it is good news - but keep in mind, XG is here to stay...:

https://martinsblog.dk/sophos-utm-9-6-is-coming-soon-with-more-on-the-way/

Here's a link to a post I made with a workaround that alters a certificate name to allow the certificate to be downloaded.

Cheers - Bob

@Bob,

Is 9.510-4(5?) safe to update to now?

Updated to 9.510-5.

Still getting the same errors as in post

https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/f/hardware-installation-up2date-licensing/104163/sophos-utm-9-510-4-released---let-s-share-experiences/380061#380061

Thought this would of been fixed by now.

Good thing for backups!!

Updated to 9.510-5.

Still getting the same errors as in post

https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/f/hardware-installation-up2date-licensing/104163/sophos-utm-9-510-4-released---let-s-share-experiences/380061#380061

Thought this would of been fixed by now.

Good thing for backups!!

Has the issue in post https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/f/hardware-installation-up2date-licensing/104163/sophos-utm-9-510-4-released---let-s-share-experiences/380061#380061  been resolved in 9.601-5?

Thanks!

We have an SG115 HA pair running the latest 9.6 branch (9.602-3) and are still getting these errors endlessly in our wireless logs.

2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: WARN -------------------------------------------------------
2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: Use of uninitialized value in string ne at awed_ng.pl line 2515.
2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: 1 main::updateActiveAweLocalChannels
2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: WARN -------------------------------------------------------
2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: Use of uninitialized value $local_ActiveChannel in string ne at awed_ng.pl line 2515.
2019:05:20-22:15:46 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: 1 main::updateActiveAweLocalChannels
2019:05:20-22:15:49 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: WARN -------------------------------------------------------
2019:05:20-22:15:49 anonfw-2 awed[7102]: Use of uninitialized value in string ne at awed_ng.pl line 2515.

Our ticket with support says that this is benign, but we have constant complaints about the wifi at this location, where as we have no complaints at other locations that don't show this error.

What is it? How is it resolved?

You already know that this is only the second time this has been reported and that no one has posted a resolution.  I would go ahead and get a case open with Sophos Support.

If you want to try to resolve it yourself, I would first try deleting the Wireless Network and then creating it anew.  If you have an unused Ethernet port, you can use it as a place holder in the DHCP Server and Interface definitions to avoid having to recreate them.

If that doesn't work, I would try the same with the Access Point definition.  Edit it first, open up 'Wireless Networks' and 'Advanced' and get a screen cap of the settings.  The definition will automatically re-establish as long as the AP is still active on your LAN.

Any luck with any of that?

Cheers - Bob

1) How would I possibly know this is only the second time it's been reported?  I already opened a case with Sophos Support, and they told us it was benign (it may be, but if so it's a pretty strong coincidence that our site with the most wifi complaints also has this otherwise-unseen 'benign' message)

2) I'll give this a try - One of our networks is bridge to LAN, the other is not.  I can recreate both to see if it makes any difference.

3) I've already tried disconnecting and re-adding the APs, which I assume is what this step accomplishes? 

1) I Googled site:community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/f "Use of uninitialized value" and I figured you had too since you found the thread where the other report was posted.  I would request escalation of your case.

3) Exactly.

Cheers - Bob