First impression and feedback

...try with Log viewer...there should be second tab for policy test.

Thanks. I do not understand why Policy test is not under Diagnostics. Also it is possible to edit the Web filter but not the Firewall rule.

Not a good deal. In order to test a policy, you need to move to another windows, under log viewer? Why?

Also,

the old way to have CPU, Memory, Sessions and bandwidth through the Graphs was much better.

Firewall rule management is much much much better. Thanks for that, Sophos. Finally managing 100/200 rules should not be a problem anymore now.

....regarding policy test I am satisfied with it in logviewer, since now I could have one window with policy test and edit fw or web rule in another. To be honest the policy helpdesk on SG is causing many back and front clicking when making changes in web policy and checking it with policy test.

The log viewer and policy tester will be linked later in the beta, in the diagnostics section, so you will be able to easily find them both from there. 

Hi Alan,

good job about Web UI performance.

What's new under the hood?

What beta version will show us the new logviewer?

Could you insert in this version automatic fetch of Microsoft FeedRSS about O365 IP Adresses and FQDN Name?

.... and IKEv2 is here.... with patience...but it's here! good

Installed on my test XG. The one with the broken MTA sending function and used for testing IPv6.

Installed (upgraded) without any issues over MR7.

Mail would not send. Changed to MTA and setup smarthost. Mail would not send, unable to connect to mail servers. Restored mail to transparent proxy and I am able to send mail from MAC and XG if freshly generated, but none of the stuck stuff from earlier testing. Mail is queued for scanning, but never leaves while using MTA. Maybe a fresh install using the beta ISO is required? Mail reporting, shows some 200 messages from na to na, with one user on the network.

IPv6 is still broken. WAN receives an IPv6 /64 address but there is no way of finding what /56 has been assigned to me.

The new firewall screen will take a bit of getting used to, I will need to use my glasses more often to read the values.

A quick summary indicated that this version is a lot slicker overall with a faster GUI.

Need to check the report generation dates to see if they are being generated in AU time, not BST.

Ian

More information. Tried to create anew report and schedule it, but no matter what I do the report cannot be created, red flag keeps appearing. More testing to come.

rfcat_vk said:

The new firewall screen will take a bit of getting used to, I will need to use my glasses more often to read the values.

A quick summary indicated that this version is a lot slicker overall with a faster GUI.

Ian

AlanT , rfcat_vk is right. Firewall rules are so smooth to check and see now (even if a little bit bigger was better). Firewall rules compared to other menu are too small. For example take a look at the web policies. I hope you will reduce even the web section. In order to see the web policies, move up and down is required.

For the content filtering window, please make sure to enlarge it. It is too small and you need to use the scroll bar.

I still do not understand why you do not use the white space on the right. So much waste of it!

Anyway you did a great job on UI performance and even if Firewall Section is too small, I really like it. Well done!

Policy test is not under diagnostics because we wanted it on a pop-up second window.  It is for the same reason that Logs are in a pop-up window.  As alan indicated, we may add a link to it from Diagnostics so that it is easier to find.

I'm not sure about the status of editing the firewall rule from the Policy Test (like we can for Web).  Alan?


Getting layout and size right is hard for all browsers, screen sizes, user needs, and eyesight.  Remember that you can change zoom (Control-MouseWheel to zoom in and out, and Control-0 to reset to 100%).

Hello,

I agree with rfcat_vk and lferrara too that the font in a firewall packet rule should be a little bigger. 

Is it possible to vote somewhere?

;-) 

alda

Hello,

I agree with rfcat_vk and lferrara too that the font in a firewall packet rule should be a little bigger. 

Is it possible to vote somewhere?

;-) 

alda