Let's Encrypt Integration came with UTM 9.6. That's great!

You should now implement the support of Let's Encrypt Wilcard domains with ACMEv2.

Best Regards

Let's Encrypt Integration is really cool but it would be even better if there is support for Domain Validation via DNS challenge. With DNS challenge, you can prove domain ownership (through responding to a challenge with a DNS TXT record) without the need to expose any services to the Internet.

It should be possible to configure the tls version per virtual-webserver.

Also see https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/f/web-server-security/99587/waf---vws---tls-version-setting-removed-from-utm-9-506/367224#367224

Support the latest version of TLS protocol for improved security and performance. TLS 1.3 is huge step forward for web security and performance.

It would be very nice if Let's Encrypt CA start with public certificates (letsencrypt.org), that we can get certs throug the UTM Gui. So that the "Let's Encrypt Client" is integrated in the UTM. Would it be possible?
Best Regards

The UTM should have a function in the Web Server Protection that allows the administrator to configure whether or not encoded slashes are allowed for the servers.

This is especially important for specific SAP-relevant functions, such as Fiori systems.
At the moment it's possible to manually configure this setting but it's reset everytime a change to a server is made.
I believe that it would be best to either:
- not overwrite the that point in the config, if enabled
- or straight up allow this configuration in the panel.

Please add HTTP/2 support

Add a page to show current logged on users, log on time & duration. Possibly a link to the log of what pages they have visited whilst logged on?

The ability to not just create a "skip rule ID" entry for a signature, but actually modify whether the firewall treats it as critical or not. Similar to tuning rules and rule categories in the IPS.

Can you please disable the Server Signature header on the Web Server Protection so that it shows NULL or anything else apart from "Apache".

Although this is not a failure for PCI compliance, it does flag on the check and not showing closes a possible issue.

Currently, Web Server Protection logs only note the first listed domain to identify which virtual web server was used by the client.
• server: first domain name of the virtual server serving the request

Since there can be a number of domains used by the same virtual web server, it would be much more useful to log the actual domain requested in the host header. As different domains can be used for different environments, this would provide much better analytics on how the virtual web server is being used.

Currently when logging in and specifying a bad username or password, no feedback is given. The page simply reloads with no indication that the login attempt was even processed.
Request:
Provide basic authentication feedback preferably by populating runtime variables. These could be common auth failure results of "bad username or password", "account disabled", "password expired", "authorization failure", etc.

When UTM is deployed as part of a proxy chain the WAF logs do not capture the client source details present in the X-Forward-For headers, but will instead log the upstream proxy's IP address as source.
Can we have a log field that allows administrators to also see the original requester's source address?

Note that ProxyProtocol support does not solve this issue as many upstream proxies do not support this for traffic already tagged with X-Forward-For information.

Allow administrators to modify the pre-supplied rules for the WAF as custom rules cannot override existing signatures. Having to create a custom signature and then exempt the built-in signature causes lots of additional administration and clutter.

UTM 9

Sophos UTM already uses OpenVPN port sharing if the userportal uses the same port als SSL VPN. But I can't use SSL VPN on port 443, too.

Basically it should be possible to use OpenVPN port sharing with the web application firewall instead of the user portal.
In the WAP it should be possible to define a virtual web server that points to the userportal.

At the Moment we can use the new OTP Feature just for all virtuell webserver. Therefore, it is not possible to use this great new function in most implementations.

An example, many customers want to publish Exchange Services like OWA, ActiveSync and Outlook Anywhere. OWA with OTP and ActiveSync without OTP. But that is not possible.

I suggest, you implement a new authentication Profile for OTP that we can use in the site path Routing.

The Reverse Authentification feature (UTM 9.2) for WAF is a nice progres, but I'm hoping that it will soon be extended. There are many scenarios that require at least NTLM; Kerberos would be nice as well. Yes, we are coming from TMG :-)

Please provide the option in the Reverse proxy to enable encodedslashes for a specific virtual webserver.

Because some web applications use for example %2F for a slash and the reverse proxy cannot translate this back to / because of allowencodedslashes is not enabled by default. So this results in a 404 error.

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/core.html#allowencodedslashes

When changing the configuration file of the reverseproxy it is working fine, but the configuration is overwritten all the time. So a checkbox in the Webadmin to enable this option would be nice.

Issue ID 33532 the ability to publish a Remote Desktop Gateway would be appreciated. currently there is no support for it in UTM.