The list of CVEs concerning bugs in the linux kernel is steadily growing, but the rate of updates we're getting for the UTM is in steady decline.
I know that UTM can be considered a dying horse, but nevertheless this thing is still supported and should at least be getting security fixes. None are coming.
What do you guys think about this? Are you as nervous as I am? Or am I simply too nervous about this "well-hardened" security device getting hacked?
What firewall alternatives with a good security track record are you examining?
I think this is the link you're looking for:
I am also wondering.
I'm also wondering about the absence of any security fixes since a half year. I assume it is because the new CVEs did not match the ancient kernel (3.12.74), strongswan (4.4.1) ... so they should have to self check the new vulnerabilities and probably back port any fixes which is costly.
We install/maintain now more Fo*****es and examine OPNsense. The XG is no alternative for us (for different reasons I posted in the last years in the XG forum).
Firewall consultant since 1995Astaro consultant since 2001Sophos partner since 2012BERGMANN engineering & consulting GmbH, Wien/Austria
Thank you for reaching out to the Community!
Would it be possible for you to share the CVEs that you're concerned about? I'd like to followup internally and update you.
Community Support Engineer | Sophos Technical SupportSupport Videos | Product Documentation | @SophosSupport | Sign up for SMS Alerts If a post solves your question use the 'Verify Answer' button.
March 2 2020 a private equity firm completed its acquisition of Sophos. I'd expect the trend of fewer updates, worsening support (though I'm not sure that is possible), and more upselling to continue.
thanks for joining in.
I can't say much about the Linux kernel as it is - like Josef said - ancient (3.12.74-0.358283885.gbf77995.rb5-smp64). If you'd mind you could shed some light into the internal security auditing process.
Possible kernel vulnerabilities (usable for local privilege escalation):
CVE-2021-27365, CVE-2021-27363 and CVE-2021-27364
Apart from the kernel, there are numerous outdated software packages in use. Some of them exposed to the internet:
OpenSSL 1.0.2j-fips 26 Sep 2016
CVE-2020-1971 (this is awaiting follow-up by you in community thread https://community.sophos.com/utm-firewall/f/general-discussion/124658/openssl-null-pointer-reference-issue-cve-2020-1971)
OpenVPN 2.3.10 i686-suse-linux-gnu [SSL (OpenSSL)] [LZO] [EPOLL] [MH] [IPv6] built on Jun 29 2017
Maybe I've gotten so used to updating everything all the time, that it's kind of obscure for me to not patch the firewall.
is there any update? We are really concerned about the missing security updates as well. Feels like Sophos UTM has been abandoned despite of all promises that this platform is still maintained by sophos.
The only surprise here is that you are surprised. Sophos made it clear many years ago that XG Firewall was their future. The synchronized protection is a great marketing story, while UTM's architecture is so unique, and so poorly documented, that a new admin learns the architecture by accident after making a configuration error.
Over the last few years, we have seen disastrous UTM development mistakes: Everything between 9.408 and 9.506, and I so distrusted all of 9.6x that I went from 9.508 to 9.703. Be glad that you have a pretty solid release now.
The development problems have left me wondering if an all-in-one box is inherently too complex to sustain reliably. Certainly, UTM's features are not equally appealing. Web Filtering is a gem, and it's best feature. Site-to-Site VPN is inadequate without IKEv2. HTML VPN seems to remain exactly the way it was obtained from Astaro. 2-Factor authentication is useful, but is hindered because it has no server functions, so it can only authenticate other UTM functions. Email filtering is simply insufficient on many grounds, and the future of email filtering is in the cloud, not in appliances. After many false starts, Sophos EMail Security in the cloud appears to be a competent offering.
We have gotten several good years out of UTM, and I expect we will hang onto it for quite awhile more. But my next solution architecture will probably be multiple specialized platforms instead of one box which tries to do it all, inconsistently.
Guys, this is a security appliance. It's easier for the developers to patch a known version than to vet a new one. I think they can apply many patches with pattern updates instead of releasing a new version.
I know there's a list of CVEs and when they were addressed. Harsh, can you get that link for us here?
Cheers - Bob