Important note about SSL VPN compatibility for 20.0 MR1 with EoL SFOS versions and UTM9 OS. Learn more in the release notes.

Sophos Firewall: v20.0 MR1: Feedback and experiences

Release Post:  Sophos Firewall OS v20 MR1 is Now Available 

The old V20.0 GA Post:  Sophos Firewall: v20.0 GA: Feedback and experiences  

To make the tracking of issues / feedback easier: Please post a potential Sophos Support Case ID within your initial post, so we can track your feedback/issue. 

Release Notes:  https://docs.sophos.com/releasenotes/output/en-us/nsg/sf_200_rn.html 

Important Note on EOL Sophos RED Support:

The legacy EOL RED 15, RED 15w, and RED 50 are not supported in v20 MR1. Customers using these devices should upgrade to SD-RED or a smaller XGS appliance before upgrading to MR1 to maintain connectivity. See the following article for details: Sophos RED: End-of-life of RED 15/15(w) and RED 50



Prio Change
[bearbeitet von: LuCar Toni um 4:40 PM (GMT -7) am 23 Sep 2024]
Parents
  • Problem with dhcpd after MR1 upgrade

    Hi LuCar,
    after upgrading to mr1 the dhcpd doesn't start anymore.
    The dhcpd.log file states a problem with "nextserver".
    We're opening a supportcall and will downgrade to 20.0.0 to have a working system

    That happened on another system too.

    Grüße

    Olaf Pelzer

  • Thank you    for reporting this.

    We have identified the root cause, workaround, and resolution.

    Root cause summary:  

    DHCP Boot Options Next-server configuration cannot take URL value (as per RFC 2131). The validation for the URL is missing in v20 MR1. When URL is present in DHCP Boot Options Next-server config, the DHCP service fails to start.

     Workaround: Please remove URL config from the DHCP Boot Option Next server configuration (DHCP server  > Boot Options > Next-server).

    Resolution:  We will soon release a hotfix to resolve this/prevent it from happening. And also fix this in the immediate next maintenance release.

    Root cause details:  

    Till 20.0 GA and earlier versions, Boot Option configures DHCP options 66 and 67 internally and did NOT consider Next-server and boot file configurations.

    In 20.0 MR1 and later versions, these settings configure the DHCP Boot Options Next-server and Boot file option available in the DHPC header. 

    During Migration, if DHCP Boot options Next-server and Bootfile are configured, then when migrating to 20 MR1, SFOS retained the configuration for both DHCP Boot options (Next-server and Boot file) and DHCP options 66 and 67. Additionally, DHCP options 66 and 67 was populated by the firewall (internally) will be made visible on UI under the DHCP option section.

    The next-server option only support IP address and domain. URL values are not supported (as per RFC 2131), however, the URL value validation has been missing which caused the DHCP service to fail.

    Thank you for your understanding and patience as we work to resolve this issue.  

    Sophos Team

  • The hotfix did only part of the job in our tests, but the workaround/solution is quite simple:
    Clear the content of the field "next server" in the dhcp gui and the dhcp-service can be started.
    The Hotfix as it is now just copies the content of the next-server-field into dhcp-option 66, which is available in the gui since SFOS v20.0 MR1.

    Grüße

    Olaf Pelzer

  • yep, thanks. that is what the hotline told me now, too. Would have been easy to state it here... But the flooding with renewals is another topic.

  • Thanks for clearing it somehow out with  . But can   have a look at our device, see PM, for the topic of renewal flooding. Normally the clients should renew at half of the time but some are doing it after some seconds/minutes again and again since upgrade to 20 MR1. Didn't see this behaviour in the former version.

  • Looking into the device, I think, the DHCP service was not dead on the firmware upgrade as there was no URL configured in the next-server option before migration. I think you are trying to configure URL from the GUI and observing DHCP service dead.

    The aim of the hotfix was to prevent the DHCP server dead and network outage if URL was configured on the firmware upgrade operation. 

    Overlooked this one in my last answer: no, you aren't right, we had configured it before upgrade and what was happening is that the entry was doubled from next-server to 66 but not deleted there, but DHCP was dead. Upgrade was after the 3rd June (6th) and so this shouldn't be expected. In my eyes the hotfix was not working... Why don't you copy the entry only to field 66 and delete next-server afterwards in the hotfix if there is a URL? This should be the expected behaviour from customer side.

  • Hi K-M,
    if I understood you, you're asking me looking directly onto your device.
    As I'm not employed by Sophos that's not possible.

    Grüße

    Olaf Pelzer

  • I saw it was somewhat unclear, changed it shortly before your answer ;)

  • I made that recommendation already thru internal Sophos channel's 2 days ago ;-)

    Grüße

    Olaf Pelzer

  • In our case the hotfix did even nothing... dhcp was dead. So I think the job is not done anytime in our experience.

  • Hi  
    I have relook the device and below is the reason why the HF is not worked for your case.
    - The device migrated at around Jun 06 09:47(UTC), and the hotfix is applied at Jun 06 10:06:25(UTC) so the DHCP service is expected to be dead between this time.
    - As per the logs it seems that DHCP server configuration is updated/deleted, probably to diagnose the DHCP service dead, and the service is started running around Jun 06 10:04(UTC), before the hotfix.


    - As the probablematic configuration removed before the hotfix applied, the hotfix don't do anything. Hence at first sight, it didn't look like device was affected with the issue.

    It's should be noted that the hotfix will not apply immediately on the firmware upgrade and it may take approx 15 to 20 min to apply all the hotfixes.

    I hope this info will clear the understanding about why the hotfix didn't worked for your case. 

  • Top, thanks for clearing. But our proposed solution would be better from customer sight ;)

    What about the DHCP flooding? Shall I open a case for it?

Reply Children