This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UTM 9.601 - RED issues!

Since upgrading all our customers to 9.601, a bigger part of them are complaining about RED's re/disconnection in a no-pattern way.

It started for all of them just the night we upgraded to 9.601, and they all are on different ISP's and located different places around the country.

Been with Sophos support for 2 hours today, and now they escalated it to higher grounds.

Will return with an update....

Suspicious entries in the log - but all connected REDs do this before connection:

2019:03:06-15:15:38 fw01-2 red_server[17509]: SELF: Cannot do SSL handshake on socket accept from 'xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx': SSL connect accept failed because of handshake problems

2019:03:06-15:15:46 fw01-2 red2ctl[12420]: Missing keepalive from reds3:0, disabling peer xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx

I know the last line is written before the tunnel disconnects, because there was no "PING/PONG" answer...

One customer has 2 x RD 50, one 1 100% stable and the other fluctuates in random intervals - we replaced this with a new RED 50, but the same thing occurs.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Same issues here after 9.601-5 UTM update. 2x RED50 Rev 1. Drop multiple ISPs at varying intervals and lengths. It was advised to re-create RED in UTM. I have performed this, but problems still persist. I was sent two replacement RED50. The first one has been replaced, a new config created, but problem persists. ISPs modems have been replaced although they were reluctant to do so. One of the REDs wont recognize the presence of ISP on WAN1 at all.

    We are losing a lot of productivity and business. We do a sizeable portion of our business via teleconferencing.

    Support Tickets#

    8710435

    8707203

    8707207

     

    The tech alluded to a potential issue with REDs after the update to 9.6.01-5.

  • My problem is resolved. There is a known issue related to unified firmware.

    from su -

    cc get red use_unified_firmware

    if value returned = 1

    cc set red use_unified_firmware 0

    reds will update and reboot

    confirm value is 0 rerunning get command above

     

    NOT A PERMANENT FIX. The issue needs to be addressed in Sophos UTM firmware permanently.

  • Hi,

     

    have you tried with unified firmware = 0 just to see if it's the issue or you are facing other problems with the RED?

     

    My issues with RED 50's have been solved with 9.602 AND unified firmware = 1

    -----

    Best regards
    Martin

    Sophos XGS 2100 @ Home | Sophos v20 Architect

  • Workaround for me: Just use 1x tunnel between Red and SGxxx - in redundant configuration we had the same problem. But it depends of the ISP on the site of REDs. With some ISPs we can use redundant tunnels, with other ISP we had to use just only one tunnel!

    good luck

  • BAlfson said:

    Reinhold, Premium support just means (in Europe) that you can contact Support directly instead of having to go through the Sophos Partner you purchased from.  You still get the lowest level of support personnel to start with. 

     

     

    Sadly, I can confirm this. Wish I had known before recommending that our customers here (I work for an MSP) purchase the premium option. They have paid steep fees for it and are not being taken care of very well. In this particular case of REDs disconnecting after 9.601, I initially called German support and was also told it's a known firmware issue, no fix date confirmed. The tech had me switch on the firewall's support access, but no one actually connected to it. He wrote to me a few days later and enclosed the procedure of how to manually reset the system using a config backup on a USB stick... Dankeschön und auf Wiedersehen! If I absolutely have to call in future, it will be after German business hours, when calls get routed to the US.

    Luckily there were already quite a few threads on the topic in this forum. In spite of 1000's of working REDs, it looks like a not insignificant number of installations have been affected by the issue. For us, the sure fix has been to deactivate the Red, set interface to MTU 1400, and reactivate. Thanks to whoever came up with that! 

  • __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • LuCar Toni,

    I appreciate Sophos finally acknowledging the issue. We have had 2 REDs RMA'ed. Thanks for supporting us.

    One thing that would help this situation is to allow the "cc set red use_unified_firmware 0" flag change to be persistent on a further firmware upgrades once the UTM is in the 9.6 branch. As it is, this flag is reset on any further update. This was the case for me when I upgraded to 9.603001 from 9.601-5. Previously I had changed the flag to =0 but the UTM set it back to =1 during the upgrade and my new REDs reverted back to the unified firmware. This made me very nervous that I would have two more "bricks" at anytime so I reset the flag back to 0 again. Luckily the units do not "brick" during that process!!

    I can't go through the workaround of disconnecting REDs every time I need to upgrade! I upgrade firmware during late night maintenance windows (as most admins do) so there is no one at the remote office to disconnect the RED! 

    Thanks.

  • Garth's is a good question, Toni.  Do we know if it suffices to disable the RED in the UTM before Up2Dating and then enable it after having disabled unified firmware?

    Unless I'm wrong, the KB should be modified to reflect the fact that use_unified_firmware must be applied separately to each UTM in High Availability.

    NOTE about one day later: see my post below

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  •  can correct me with more information, but as far as i know, you need to set this CC switch on the master and it should be synced to the other Appliance. (like all CC switches). 

    Also this switch should be "off" after a Firmware Update. But you should check it after the firmware Update. 

     

    Sophos slowly increased the switch in the last updates.

    Currently, the unified firmware will only be applied to installations with fewer than 20 RED devices configured.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • LuCar Toni said:

     can correct me with more information, but as far as i know, you need to set this CC switch on the master and it should be synced to the other Appliance. (like all CC switches). 

    Also this switch should be "off" after a Firmware Update. But you should check it after the firmware Update. 

    Currently, the unified firmware will only be applied to installations with fewer than 20 RED devices configured.

     

     

    Hi all,

     

    UTM 9.601 to 9.603 will ENABLE unified firmware from my experience, we had a dusin VERY angry customers :-(

     

     and  20 is WAY too big a number, we have 6 devices in Germany, and we are located in Denmark, can you even think of the problems we where facing? And first of all, Sophos did not recognize this as an firmware issue, but the mere "What have you done wrong?", "what is your licensing number?", "Do you have power to the device?"

    Please reduce the number to 3, as if even one device fails this, it should have stopped immediately!

     

    Sorry for writing in big letters, but you should know how many problems this has caused us = money (Which I'm not aware of, as I am not the boss!=) ;)

    -----

    Best regards
    Martin

    Sophos XGS 2100 @ Home | Sophos v20 Architect

  • I just got this from Sophos Support:

    1. Are any other REDs in danger of being bricked, or is it just the RED 50?
    - So far we have only seen RED 50 but this doesn't rule out RED 15
    2. In High Availability, does use_unified_firmware need to be set to 0 on all nodes?
    - No it would replicate the command
    3. Instead of physically unplugging REDs, would it suffice to disable the RED server objects in WebAdmin before applying the Up2Date and then enable them after 9.604 has had use_unified_firmware set to 0?
    - In theory yes if you disable the service in the UTM or turn off the RED devices, then they won't be able to get the Firmware Update, so they won't be able to contact the server, and once you re-enable the services they will not search for a new firmware update

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reply Children
  • In 9.605 Issues Resolved:

    "NUTM-10962 [RED] Fix for RED50 does not start up after firmware update for most scenarios"

     

    Can Sophos (or anyone else) comment as to whether the "CC SET RED USE_UNIFIED_FIRMWARE 0" is still required with this update and in future? Has the unified firmware bug for the RED50 truly been squashed?

    Cheers,

    Garth

  • Hi All,


    The new unified RED firmware included in UTM 9.605 includes a fix for the issue which some of you have reported when upgrading the firmware on the RED 50.


    However, you should be aware that there is still the possibility that the issue will occur during the update to 9.605 if the RED 50 has the older firmware installed. This will not occur with further firmware updates to your system in the future and unfortunately, can also not be bypassed by using the previous workaround of disabling the unified firmware. This is due to the fact that the issue is within the firmware update process of the old firmware.


    During our tests, we were only able to reproduce this issue with RED 50 devices which are under significant load. As this is a race condition issue, we cannot guarantee that you will not run into this issue again if you have experienced it before, nor can we predict, if it will occur in any particular scenario. However, the issue is certainly less likely to occur in scenarios where the RED 50 is not under load during the update process, and so, if possible, we would advise that you disconnect the local network behind the RED during the update.


    We apologize for the inconvenience this issue has caused.


    Jan

  • garth1138 said:

    In 9.605 Issues Resolved:

    "NUTM-10962 [RED] Fix for RED50 does not start up after firmware update for most scenarios"

     

    Can Sophos (or anyone else) comment as to whether the "CC SET RED USE_UNIFIED_FIRMWARE 0" is still required with this update and in future? Has the unified firmware bug for the RED50 truly been squashed?

    Cheers,

    Garth

     

     

    yes for us it is still required with the RED50!

  • Jan, this is confusing.  Are you saying that the RED 50s will get bricked after Up2Dating to 9.605 no matter what precaution one takes what workaround one uses to set use_unified_firmware to 0 before the REDs are brought back online?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • Hi there!

    We made an Update to 9.604-2 with our both SG125.

    Our 5 RED15-Devices going offline. 

    The Workaround helps to 4 came back online.

    Bit 1 Device wil not!!! That is business mission critical!

    I set the MTU of the interface to 1400. DONT help.

    I delete the RED an re-create. DONT help.

    I see a permanent Loop in the Log:

    2019:07:30-07:56:55 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: SELF: New connection from X.X.X.X with ID XXXXXXXXXX (cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384), rev1
    2019:07:30-07:56:55 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: connected OK, pushing config
    2019:07:30-07:56:56 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: command '{"data":{"version":"0"},"type":"INIT_CONNECTION"}'
    2019:07:30-07:56:56 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Initializing connection running protocol version 0
    2019:07:30-07:56:56 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Sending json message {"data":{},"type":"WELCOME"}
    2019:07:30-07:56:57 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: command '{"data":{},"type":"CONFIG_REQ"}'
    2019:07:30-07:56:57 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Sending json message {"data":{"pin":"","fullbr_dns":"","split_networks":"1.2.3.4","lan2_vids":"","lan4_vids":"","local_networks":"","tunnel_id":2,"manual2_netmask":24,"asg_cert":"[removed]","manual_address":"0.0.0.0","bridge_proto":"none","unlock_code":"xxxxxxx","password":"","manual2_defgw":"0.0.0.0","prev_unlock_code":"rlvqiegl","manual_netmask":24,"lan3_vids":"","version_r2":"2005R2","mac_filter_type":"none","mac":"xxx","dial_string":"*99#","manual2_address":"0.0.0.0","version_ng_red50":"5211","manual_dns":"0.0.0.0","lan1_mode":"unused","username":"","activate_modem":"0","tunnel_compression_algorithm":"lzo","version_red50":"5211","fullbr_domains":"","uplink_balancing":"failover","asg_key":"[removed]","type":"red15","deployment_mode":"online","uplink2_mode":"dhcp","version_red15":"5211","manual2_dns":"0.0.0.0","lan2_mode":"unused","debug_level":0,"local_networks_target":"","fai...L1421
    2019:07:30-07:56:59 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: command '{"data":{"device":"RED15","type":"tar.gz","version":"5211"},"type":"FW_FILE_REQ"}'
    2019:07:30-07:56:59 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Requesting firmware file /usr/share/red-firmware//red15-v5211.tar.gz
    2019:07:30-07:57:13 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Sending json message {"data":{},"type":"FW_FILE_FIN"}
    2019:07:30-07:57:13 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: command '{"data":{"device":"RED15","type":"md5sum","version":"5211"},"type":"FW_FILE_REQ"}'
    2019:07:30-07:57:13 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Requesting firmware file /usr/share/red-firmware//red15-v5211.md5sum
    2019:07:30-07:57:13 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Sending json message {"data":{},"type":"FW_FILE_FIN"}
    2019:07:30-07:57:15 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: command '{"data":{"message":"Successfully downloaded firmware version 5211 from UTM"},"type":"DISCONNECT"}'
    2019:07:30-07:57:15 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX: Disconnecting: Successfully downloaded firmware version 5211 from UTM
    2019:07:30-07:57:15 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: id="4202" severity="info" sys="System" sub="RED" name="RED Tunnel Down" red_id="XXXXXXXXXX" forced="1"
    2019:07:30-07:57:15 rkdfw001-1 red_server[19875]: XXXXXXXXXX is disconnected.

    How can i fix this??

    Best Regards!

    Phill

  • Hi BAlfson, All,

    That is not entirely what I am saying. The issue we have within the RED50 is that the old firmware is having issues when applying the new firmware, hence switching off the unified firmware might not prevent this from happening in case the RED50 has the unified firmware installed on it, as this might cause the issue to happen when applying the not unified firmware. The same unfortunately can happen with the new MR5 firmware as well, as it will be applied by the old faulty firmware.

    What we have found in our testing is that the issue is likely only to occur in cases when the RED50 is under load when the firmware update is being started, hence the recommendation to put the network behind the RED50 offline for the update. This does not mean taking the RED50 itself offline, it needs to stay online to get the new firmware.

    Ones the RED50 has the MR5 firmware installed, the issue is fixed and following firmware updates will not require these steps.

    Hope this provides a little more background.

     

    Jan

  • Hi Phill,

    can you please reach out to Sophos Support for getting this analyzed and addressed?

    Thanks,

    Jan

  • Still not comfortable, Jan...

    What is MR5 firmware?  Does this also fix the same problem with the RED 15s?  Many RED 50s and RED 15s were knocked offline and some RED 50s were bricked.    What is "the issue" or are these the same issue?

    How does one "put the network behind the RED50 offline for the update" and where is that recommendation to be seen?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • We have 3 RED50s deployed in other states. There is no IT staff at the remote sites. If these things go down, we have no Email, CRM. telephones, nothing. I've been holding off on updates due to this very problem.

    What's my guaranteed, iron-clad way of updating without no unforeseen downtime?

     

  • Hi All,

    2019-08-06 See my final version posted today

    UPDATED 2019-08-01

    I've had several messages back and forth with Sophos folks.  As Jan Weber says in a post, 9.605 fixes the problem with REDs and the only danger is updating the RED firmware when the RED is under a heavy load.  I have suggested that the following instructions be added to the information about the Up2Date (I in blue dot) and the blog post about the 9.605 Up2Date:

    In order to ensure that there's no problem with the update of firmware in RED devices, do the following with two planned outages:

     1. Outage 1 - Up2Date to 9.604:
         A. In WebAdmin, disable all RED Servers for RED appliances.
         B. Apply Up2Dates through 9.604.
         C. At the command line: cc set red use_unified_firmware 0
         D. In WebAdmin, enable all RED Servers for RED appliances.
     2. Outage 2 -
    Disconnect all LAN connections from all REDs, leaving the RED online but with no connection to local clients.
     3. Apply the 9.605 Up2Date.
     4. After the Up2Date is complete, reconnect disconnected LAN cables to the REDs.

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA