Dear Sophos support team,there have been several requests about this topic, but digging through them didn't provide a proper solution.In the past Sophos provided a guideline for the UTM how to publish an Exchange server with WAF.I did not find an equivalent for the XG.So can you please provide a guideline how to publish Exchange over XG WAF with ActiveSync working and keeping WAF as secure as possible ?Any help is appreciated.Best RegardsranX
To integrate a WAF with Exchange is a standard task, so your company should still be able to provide guidelines about how to do it.It was possible with UTM; why not with XG ?Why should I contact a Sophos…
Nothing ? Really ?Again "lost in space" with XG ?
There are German external Posts about how to integrate this: https://www.frankysweb.de/sophos-xg-18-webserver-protection-und-exchange-2019/
Simply use MAPI and the predefined Policies, should work.
Contact your Sophos Partner to get assistance for the configuration.
On the other hand, maybe its time to look at O365 / Exchange Online for certain reasons. See the vulnerabilities coming up in Exchange on Prem,.
About your first request: The intention of GDPR is, to protect the single individual from misuse of it's personal data.A third person (e.g. a "lawyer") is not able to charge you money, when you or your company violates GDPR.So they cannot earn any money on this, like it was the case with copyright infringment.The only party getting money, are the authorities supervising GDPR.Just like the street authorities, charging you for speeding or parking tickets.So it's the same principle: many go too fast or park at the wrong place - but as controlling personnel is limited by far not all of them are caught.But still the most of us agree, it's a reasonable behaviour, to keep an eye on the pace most of the time.GDPR is realtively new; so there is little common experience and lots of confusion.And for a long time there had been no court decisions.In this vacuum many customers started with O365.But there were also many, that were aware, they couldn't make legal use of O365, the way, it is designed now.Those asked MS to provide a GDPR compliant solution.Therefore MS published this "pseudo" guideline."Pseudo" because ist doesn't name a solution to the most crucial point: all data is processed on MS systems, which can be accessed by US government authorities.As long as these have access, O365 will not be GDPR compliant.From admin sight there's no good solution:- Exchange on prem is unsafe, due to missing updates- Exchange online is also no good advice because of missing GDPR compliancePossible workarounds:- to stop publishing the on prem Webservices use VPN as entrypoint- switch to other mailservice+groupware, which has less known vulnerabilities
I cannot comment on such topics, as i am not a IT lawyer nor have the experiences. I just acknowledge the big movement to O365 and still consider this to be a valid path, even for GDPR concerns. But this is something, which needs to be discussed in different forms on different levels.
Florentino, you may want to inform support that they need to add another rule to the list of exclusions in the KB Sophos Firewall: Web Application Firewall for Exchange 2016 -- I'm not sure if my customer had Exchange 2016 or 2019, but another rule that we had to exclude was rule ID 920420
CTO, Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC
Advice given as posted on this forum does not construe a support relationship or other relationship with Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC or its subsidiaries. Use the advice given at your own risk.
that's interesting, can you show us, where this rule has to be skipped? And what's it about?
Mit freundlichem Gruß, best regards from Germany,
New Vision GmbH, GermanySophos Silver-Partner
If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.
If you look at the KB article I referenced, there's a list of ruie IDs they list to skip for the "webservices" policy. Just added 920420 to the list. What's it about? I don't know, all I know is that regular activesync traffic was triggering it falsely... so we disabled it.
Appreciate the feedback, I'll reach out to the team to have this updated.
Hi Flo, hi Bruce,
thanks for the update - I just gave it a try.Only adding this exception didn't fix my issue.When activating the proposed rules the mobile client (iPhone with latest iOS) still was not able to logon.The log shows, that it still triggered a "Bad reputation - SXL category IPCAT_BOTS" message.
So I had to disable the option "Block clients with bad reputation" in the respective policy.I don't know, if this is recommendable or if there is a more secure setting.At the momen it's only a temporary "trial and error" setting to me.So I really would appreciate a feedback on this !
After this change I was able logon and send at least mails with small attachments.Sending of larger attachments wasn't possible.On the iPhone's mail app I receive the message, the mail was rejected because of it's size.
The Exchange server behind the XG is configured to accept ActiveSync attachments over 100 MB.-- > In C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Exchange Server\V15\ClientAccess\Sync\web.config the maxRequestLength was set to 136192Also I didn't find a corresponding entry in it's transport logs.
Thus I suspected the XG's reverse proxy.# grep "Request body no files data length" /log/reverseproxy.log on the advanced shell revealed my assumption was right
Shouldn't his already have been resolved ? --> https://community.sophos.com/sophos-xg-firewall/f/discussions/122274/problems-with-activ-sync-exchang-after-update-to-18From a customer's view, this is a pretty rocky road to go.On UTM the same thing was way much easier to configure.Best regardsranX
"save yourself the trouble"
I had the same problems with publishing Exchange 2016/2019.
Sophos has no interest at all
I asked the same questions to Sophos support, they didn´t even read my support requests properly and send me outdated documenation.
Sophos has only Documentation for outdated Microsoft Products.
Windows 2008 R2Sharepoint 2010Lync
.Even Exchange seams to stuck at 2010/2013
They don´t understand the need of the customers out there.
PS: Customers can always contact Professional Service to get a configuration done. Sophos Support is not to cover installations and/or config changes in the first place.
As LuCar Toni pointed out it is a HUGE security risk at the moment to be running Exchange on premise with WAF. I butt out of the GDPR discussion but IMHO opinion at the moment MS is doing a very poor job at protecting on premise Exchange servers against hackers of which some are on the pay roll of countries wanting to undermine the west. You don't live under a stone so you have knowledge of the flood of ransomware attacks going on and the vulnerabilities in Exchange. Yes, IMHO MS wants us all to move to MS online. Have a look at what they are trying with Office. 2019 is probably the last perpetual version you can buy.
So if you are adamant about using on premise Exchange, switch to Sophos Mobile with Secure Email Client for IOS and put the Exchange behind the Sophos EASproxy and configure it to only allow known clients and select Sophos Secure Email Client as the allowed client.
Never allow OWA or ECP through WAF!
just my 0,02.
At the time i was asking for Exchange 2019/WAF documentation, there was no word about Sophos Professional Services.Even Exchange 2019 was unknown to Sophos support (in 2020)...Even Germany Support was closed at all.
I know, Exchange behind a WAF is a huge risk, but still better than no WAF at all.
But i think a "good" Firewall might be some sort of help.
But with Firewall Rules for Windows 2008 R2, SharePoint 2010 ... and old stuff like that, Sophos is not the firewall i see here.
At least Sophos should have some uptodate of documentation for current Products.
Microsoft is selling Office 2021
Related to your Product Documentation feedback, I would advise raising any content suggestions you have, on our Product Documentation Community group.
Good Moning @ all,returning to the desk this morning, I was pretty surprised, to find a number of answers on my topic.I'm awfully sorry to say, I have to agree with Jürgen. Sophos advertises the WAF as special feature.But when it comes to putting this to use, you're left in the dark.The above post of Flo is a good example of this attitude towards customers.In the past there was always updated documentation about common use cases of these features.There was no need to specifically ask for it.Now theres only outdated documentation and for a Sophos customer it's a hard struggle, to get information.About this very topic "WAF for Exchange 2019" there have been at least two requests at this board some time ago.This is the first one who triggered at least a bit of a result.To be true, this kind of result frightens me more than a bit.Take a closer look at it:In the first, I had to be the "awkward customer" to make Sophos come up with a documentation.(to be true, I was surprised, they did this at all ...)Then I had to find, the settings given in this documentation were not thoroughly tested, as they did not work.After reporting this, Sophos themselves did not know how to resolve the issue (strange enough, isn't it ??!)So they passed it over to Convergent.Bruce found the root cause, but pointed out, he did not know, what impact the skipped rule (920420) would have. No explanation from the Sophos' side on this ...As they are the "manufacturer" it should be a breeze for them to give profound advice.Instead the overall impression: even on the Sophos side there's little knowledge about the own product.And this is, what frightens me - at least as much as Microsoft not fixing their security breaches ...Best RegardsranX
I can only point to professional service about this. Because its a third party integration. The Change of the way Exchange works in the last years is the reason for changing the behavior of WAF in the first place. They moved from RPC to MAPI.
And to be clear: Sophos Support is to work on Bug within the product, not configuration. This means, if you have a setup running, and notice behavior changes etc, this is a topic to go to Sophos Support. If you call for "how to install this product" this is not covered by Sophos Support.
The installation is usually done by the Sophos Partner or the Sophos Professional Service. And i did not notice any issues with Partners coming up to me integrating this. If this is a pretty usual use case, it seems to work for most partners to integrate this.
The WAF itself works fine and does what it should do. The integration with third party seems to be the issue here. Sophos would have to host and maintain such configuration them self to address those configuration in a secure manner. If the documentation, which Sophos provides, has some issues, this needs to be updated.
PS: The KB https://support.sophos.com/support/s/article/KB-000040209?language=en_US was updated yesterday.
Did you contact your Sophos Partner and ask about configuration support? They can refer them self to the next AP to get this sorted out.
So let me see if I go this right.You say, In the past there had been no reports by Sophos Partners with integration of Exchange ...If this were really the case, what about this request ? --> https://community.sophos.com/sophos-xg-firewall/f/discussions/126770/sfos-18-waf-for-owa-exchange-2016-2019When I look at the information about the OP, I see he is Sophos Gold Partner.You say, Sophos Support is to work on Bug within the product, not configuration.When call for "how to install this product" this is not covered by Sophos Support. This is the new kind of "quality" at Sophos, which I really dislike.When using UTM, there was a KB article about how to configure these standard implementations. With this documentation it was a breeze for me, to get the very same Exchange we still have, working by simply following the KBFor XG at first no KB; now a KB, which still doesn't work 100% with an Exchange standard installation. So even our Sophos Partner, who did the migration and configuration was left alone in the rain.(like the OP of the above linked posting) The first attempt ended up with a rollback, as several mandatory configurations did not work.E.g. routing from VPN Client tunnels to site-to-site tunnels and Exchange WAF.The second attempt was working thus far, we were at least able to avoid another rollback.The Sophos Partner engineer and I were happy, it was roughly working.But now it's my "homework" to fix the last "loose ends" like ActiveSync attachments not working etc.I don't blame the Partner for this, as I saw, which struggle it was for him, to get the needed information from your company.You surely understand, telling me, I simply have to request the necessary configuration from the Partner, sounds like a joke to me at the given circumstances.Best RegardsranX
I cannot comment on this matter with more information than the classic information hierarchic, which is the same since i work for Sophos (7 Years). Partners have a direct touch to Sophos or can refer to the Distribution to get configuration assistance.
This particular case in the community - I cannot comment on this either, as i dont know, what the resolution was. What i do know, the UTM template should work like the SFOS template for Exchange.
I use the UTM since 10 years when it still was Astaro.At that time suppot requests got resolved pretty quick.At present our partner's request took about two weeks until it was answered.The UTM template should work ...The "should" is the important word, as it doesn't, which I can confirm by personal experience.I repeat:Nothing in our environment changed; only the UTM was migrated to XG.On the UTM the template worked perfect "out of the box', on the XG it didn't.If that were the case, mine and the previous posters' requests wouldn't have been necessary ...
Ah, and by the way: the settings proposed in the new KB article still don't work, when I follow them exactly.As already mentioned I have to disable the option "Block clients with bad reputation" in the Webservices policy.Otherwise mobile clients which come with IPs from the german Telekom network will be blocked from login to ActiveSync.
Block clients with bad reputation is a old option from UTM, which, in fact uses the same database like UTM did. So this database of blocking clients should be the same but your IP, you are trying to use, seems to be blacklisted.
You see this kind of information in both online helps:
I think most mobile Devices will have a bad IP reputation, this is normal and should not be used.
Where can i reach this Sophos Professional Partners?If these are the Sophos Platin Partners, i see no hope, i asked one Platin Partner for IPv6 support and he said that he had zero to know nowledge about this.