This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

DPI Engine Bypass

Hello,

If I have a firewall rule that has a web policy set to none, so why does the DPI engine still scan the traffic? I thought this was fixed. Still seeing the traffic in the SSL inspection logs. I would really like to reduce the CPU load for traffic I don't want scanned. Running 18.5.1 MR-1, but this has been an issue since the new DPI engine was introduced. I haven't noticed it in awhile since traffic has been low, but I'm now moving a lot of data around and the XG is scanning traffic it shouldn't.

Mike



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents Reply Children
  • If it looks at the traffic and logs it, it's looking at the traffic. Your answer contradicts itself. It may not be doing anything with it, but it is still looking at the traffic, thus using system resources when it shouldn't. THe performance bottleneck is my issue. There is no way XG can give it's rated throughput numbers if the traffic is encrypted and SSL/TLS inspection is enabled. I'm at 60% CPU usage on an XG230 Rev 2 with a couble hundred megs going through it because alot of the traffic is encrypted. If I disable SSL/TLS, it drops to 30%. That's a big difference for traffic I don't need inspected and is set to "Do Not Decrypt" as you say.

    If I disable SSL inspection, I am disabling using the DPI engine for traffic. The DPI engine is better than the proxy since it looks at all ports. So if I disable it, I am not getting as good of protection, since I am relying soley on the proxy. That's not a viable option.

  • Can you please past the performance difference numbers into the forum? 

    You are talking about the performance difference in terms of CPU load, but what is the actually throughput decrease? 

    PS: This architecture is also built for XGS hardware, as it highly profit by the NPU. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • I don't have an Ixia test bed to test full throughput, that what Sophos is supposed to do. I am just doing simple math. If I'm at 60% CPU usage with a couple hundred megs going through it, how in the world can it give the rated througput of 14,800 Mbps IMIX? It can't unless you disable SSL/TLS Inspection and that is my point. Sophos should have a way to bypass it, periiod.

    PS: I don't have an XGS series. Unless Sophos is going to give me an XGS, that doesn't help me, now does it?

  • So you do not see any downsides beside a CPU increase and are worry, it could cost significant performance decrease? 

    Because i would disagree to change the entire engine. There are reasons to build this architecture like this implementation (especially going forwards in terms of xStream Architecture and NPU). To cut wholes into this architecture just because of performance bottlenecks, which could "eventually" come up, seems not to be the right call. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • It's not a worry, it happens. Once I start pushing lots of encrypted SMB traffic over the firewall, It hits over 90% CPU usage and drops packets. I was saying I don't have a test bed to give you exact numbers on what the throuput is and what the differences are with the SSL inspection turned on or off.

    So you don't see an issue with a firewall being sold with X amount of rated througput that it can't deliver without turning features off?

  • It drops traffic? This should not happen. Even if the hardware is on the hardware limit, it should not drop, it should delay. You should create a Support ID to get this investigated, if you notice dropping packets. 

    If you notice performance decrease by a small margin, this could be expected. 

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________