SATC replacement - Server Endpoint

It is attached to the Server Core Version 2.19.X 

So if a customer wants to use this, make sure, the Core Agent is updated to a 2.19.X Version. 

It is attached to the Server Core Version 2.19.X 

So if a customer wants to use this, make sure, the Core Agent is updated to a 2.19.X Version. 

Yeah the customer had to opt in to EAP, the process is in one of the above links.

found this post by chance.Thanks Ryan Partington for posting this

last week I planned for SATC Client deployment during this week after reading the articles on the Sophos website. Now with EAP enabled and waiting for the Server to receive the 2.19.x beta  I can skip that and only need to create the registry keys on the Terminal Server and add the machine to XG on advanced shell

Hello LHerzor,

unfortunately it's not just about the correct version of the Core agent and EAP participation.The web security in the Core agent have to be disabled. Unfortunately, it is not written anywhere and a colleague solved it with the Sophos GES team for more than two months before the whole solution was fully functional.

Regards

alda

Hi alda  ,

I installed  EAP on a Terminalserver today, set the reg keys, added IP it on the XG, logged on at the TS and could see at least 2 authenticated AD Users with type Thin Client from that IP on the XG Fw.

Sure, something still needs to be disabled? At least IPS is required to be enabled on the Intercept-X client regarding to the documentation.

Hello LHerzog,

my colleague told me that until web security is disabled in the Core agent on the Terminal Server, the Core agent blocks client access to the Internet. This request was notified from the GES team. Unfortunately, this requirement is not mentioned anywhere.

I assume he has a statement from the GES team in his email. I could send it to your PM.

Regards

Alda

thanks for the PN, I have tested WAN website access from that machine:

as soon as I opened a public website:

https://www.splunk.com

here  Splunk as an example, for which I created a firewall rule, I got the denied because of security heartbeat banner on the machine, with the Certificate shown from the Intercept X endpoint

At the same time, the server lost security heartbeat at the firewall and is now shown as status red there:

It has not recovered from that state while writing this post.

Do you do HTTPS Scanning on the Server? And whats the firewall rule? What are the settings on the firewall Rule? Do you use Kerberos? Because this feature is not kerberos. 

LuCar Toni yes, I created a FW rule for that server, based on allowed Users and with green source security heartbeat. HTTPS Scan, no decryption.

The issue is heartbeat on the Intercept-X Client. It cannot get Heartbeat configuration when SATC is set up between Computer and XG Firewall.

This is the heartbeat log of the client after the reboot I did minutes ago:

a 2021-11-15T16:05:14.670Z [2040:2080] - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 2021-11-15T16:05:14.670Z [2040:2080] - Starting Heartbeat version 1.14.663.0
a 2021-11-15T16:05:14.670Z [2040:2080] - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 2021-11-15T16:05:14.678Z [2040:2188] - No configuration available to establish Heartbeat connection.
a 2021-11-15T16:20:45.220Z [2040:2188] - The connection configuration has changed. Reloading settings.
a 2021-11-15T16:20:45.352Z [2040:2188] - Connection succeeded.
a 2021-11-15T16:20:45.353Z [2040:2188] - Connected to 'xxxxxxx-ede8-xxxxxx-99b1-xxxxxx13f1b' at IP address 52.5.76.173 on port 8347
a 2021-11-15T16:20:48.349Z [2040:2188] - Sending network status. Active Interfaces:
MAC: 00:50:56:85:3B:1B - INET: xxx.xxx.xxx.45 - INET6: fe80::xxx:xxx:xxx:7377

At ~ 16:18 I created a new Central Policy with Web Filtering disabled for that SATC-enabled Server in the Threat Protection Policy

At ~ 16:20 I clicked on Update on the Client Intercept X.

At 16:20:45 the heartbeat through the XG firewall was established first time.

I can now connect to the test website splunk

Other websites are disallowed as per policy.

Disabled Webfilter:

What's the question about Kerberos is about? SATC? Webfilter?

I mean, do you use Kerberos (AD SSO) for the zone of the Server on the firewall? Is Kerberos (AD SSO) enabled on your Firewall? 

Because right now, the heartbeat is not implicate in any way by the HTTPS Scanning of SATC. Because HTTPS Scanning works only for HTTPS (443/80) and the Heartbeat port is another one (8347). 

Does the firewall use "Match unknown users"? 

Hi,

no, we're not using AD SSO on any Zone.

Most firewall rules match known AD Users.

I can see the user is authenticated on XG from that server. But when I try hit some firewall rule by communicating with other machines in other subnets, it's not working because the user is not bound to the traffic as can bee seen in the live logging.

Currently, I cannot access any internal targets that require user authentication from that SATC Sercer.

Web rules are working though. Nothing else... What's that?

I'm not aware of a feature "Match unknown users" - can you explain this?