Speaking from experience, I completely agree. Going through the process, I ended up locking myself out. Luckily I DID make a backup just prior to the change, and downloaded it off of the UTM.
-------------------------------
Interesting [in-ter-uh-sting, -truh-sting, -tuh-res-ting]
A word typically used by IT technicians to describe an issue they didn't expect, or never encountered, and don't know how to fix.
That's something that may not happen here, as it's our only gateway.
I got a reply from Sophos Support, telling me that they are just doing 2nd level and I shall go through my reseller.
That's something I'm not going to do, as they would just charge me a huge amount of money...
If anybody else has a ticket open, let's keep hope that gets fixed through updates at some point!
This is a fascinating fragment from the Support statement:
...in the event intermediate certificates are used
Apparently they don't realize that every commercial certificate issued in the last 10 years (give or take) has required an intermediate certificate.
Very frustrated that they find a valid certificate chain so unimportant, for both WAF and User Portal/WebAdmin.
This is a fundamental security issue. If you don't know who is on the other end of your conversation it does not matter that no one can eavesdrop on it! This is why PCI requires that you NEVER connect to a site with an invalid certificate chain. (PCI DSS v3.2 item 4.1)
The only time that I can think of that you would not have intermediate certs is if you were creating self signed certs. Below was my reply to them. As for PCI, we went with tokenization and P2PE. Took a long time but it's worth it just to avoid that questionnaire.
From: Robert Yount
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 4:53 PM
To: Sophos Support
Subject: RE: [#6572145] SSL VPN issue
Thanks for the info, unfortunately everyone uses intermediate certificates. Seems like you need to have a KB article on this issue because there’s been quite a few discussions about this in the past. Don’t think there’s anything more that I need since it’s just the way it is until it gets fixed.
Thank you for the information Robert Yount. I agree with DouglasFoster and others who have posted that Sophos really does need to understand the scope of this problem, and do something about it. It's unfortunate that in this particular use case, you cannot implement certificates on a UTM in the way that certificates were designed to be used. At least not without resorting to some method of workaround. One of which may void your warranty. I'm a huge proponent of Sophos, and love their functionality and ease of use. And I will continue to use their products. But in my humble opinion, this issue at the very least means a major lack in functionality of the product, which among other things, can lead to being unable to follow security and compliance regulations. In the worst case, it introduces a gap in security.
-------------------------------
Interesting [in-ter-uh-sting, -truh-sting, -tuh-res-ting]
A word typically used by IT technicians to describe an issue they didn't expect, or never encountered, and don't know how to fix.
On the upside, I do have blessing from Sophos Level 2 support to implement the CC commands which solve the WebAdmin/UserPortal certificate problem, so the warranty concern is probably unimportant. (Although I have not implemented the change yet)
No workaround yet to the problem that WAF sites send a root certificate as part of their certificate chain.
With firmware version 9.7, Sophos UTM finally supports uploading a public cert through webadmin that does NOT strip the intermediate certificate. I have tested this on one of my devices, and can confirm it worked. Man was that easier than going through a putty session.
-------------------------------
Interesting [in-ter-uh-sting, -truh-sting, -tuh-res-ting]
A word typically used by IT technicians to describe an issue they didn't expect, or never encountered, and don't know how to fix.