YcEC7YYs7i.png

This is all you have within the SonicWall control, on or off. I saw this yesterday and assumed I was missing something critical. The most basic APs in the world include the "Identify AP" functionality.

Apparently, SonicWall APs are more basic than basic as they don't include this functionality at all.

On or off is all you get.

the-iconic-picard-facepalm.jpeg

@jasgot said in ATA sp112 behind Sonicwall to Skyetel:

@jclambert said in ATA sp112 behind Sonicwall to Skyetel:

I never had an issue with Cisco ATAs connected to a cloud service behind Sonicwall devices. I don't recall setting anything up, but I am curious enough to review my setup notes to confirm.

We have not either. We have many Cisco SPA ATAs in service. All of them behind Sonicwalls. This is the only one connected to Skyetel.

Would need to see the packet as I mentioned above to try and give you any kind of answer on why.

With Appflow you need to make sure you have authentication enabled for the users so it tracks per user. The Data Collection is for sure nice but it is only the top sites and no much information.
https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/help-with-user-level-authentication-settings-like-local-users-ldap-radius/170503274714653/

https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/configuring-app-flow-monitor-to-view-real-time-incoming-and-outgoing-network-data/170505632951042/

https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/how-can-i-track-which-users-or-ip-addresses-are-accessing-a-certain-website-using-appflow/170505832815323/

https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/how-can-i-collect-traffic-details-by-ip-address-on-the-firewall-through-log-reports-and-appflow/170503950787011/

@dbeato said in Sonic Wall Rules?:

@WrCombs said in Sonic Wall Rules?:

@dbeato said in Sonic Wall Rules?:

@WrCombs said in Sonic Wall Rules?:

I created Ip objects, put to a group and set the Other network to be able to view those IP's and only those IPs.

Is that correct?

That is the way it works on Sonicwalls... been using them since 2007...

fantastic, Hopefully I set it up correctly then

Well, you can show a screenshot, or use the cli too but we need to see to be 100% sure, and then you need to test. Test is always a good practice.

Testing is going to happen today as soon as I get the time to walk up front.
Hella busy right now.

Something to keep in mind is NGFW. Ubiquiti and Meraki, for example, are NGFW.

It looks like much of the market is already starting to cool on the UTM crazy and NGFW is taking off as the "next stage" of popular approaches. Basically a reversal of direction or marketing at least, even from the big players in the UTM space like Palo Alto, Fortinet, Cisco, etc.

@jaredbusch Oh no way lol, thats great!

@dbeato said in Anyone running SonicOS 6.5.0.2-8n?:

@dave247 said in Anyone running SonicOS 6.5.0.2-8n?:

We run a SonicWall NSA 3600 where I work and I am staring to look into upgrading to the new 6.5 firmware (6.5.0.2-8n). I have heard of some issues with the last two updates, and wanted to get more input if anyone has any to give..

I am not, I am using the 6.2.9 on the production Sonicwalls we have. I would recommend to test it out if possible.

Unfortunately I can't realistically test it out. Even if I had an extra, non-production unit, I doubt I could effectively detect issues since production factors would not be present enough to fully test. I suppose I could just always roll back if necessary... but I think I will probably be waiting a few more releases.. that or just move to a different UTM all together..

@scottalanmiller said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@tim_g said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@scottalanmiller said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@tim_g said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@scottalanmiller said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@jaredbusch said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@scottalanmiller said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@jaredbusch said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@scottalanmiller said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

@tim_g said in Botnet Security Alert on Sonicwall:

Latest news is saying a half million sized botnet is mining line to, and one of the targets are Linux SQL servers.

What's a Linux SQL server? Anything running a relational database? How do they target them?

I assumed that one meant Linux servers running MS SQL.

I had thought of that, but that seemed so unlikely.

Not really. I mean you know how good Windows people patch right?

That's true. But it seems like a worthless target. How many of these can there be yet?

Probably nothing outside of labs / testing.

Why would you run MS SQL on Linux when an MS SQL license includes an OS license?
Why would you run MS SQL on Linux when there are better options to run on Linux?

MS SQL licenses include an OS license?

Maybe not. I thought about it again and I think I got that mixed with System Center including an MS SQL license.

Ah, okay. I was really confused there. I've always priced it out with Server + SQL Server licenses and CALs. Was hoping I hadn't been adding all that in extra all this time 🙂

You were not doing it wrong.

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]

The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.

But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."

Prove this.

Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.

Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.

But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.

Cost has nothing to do with that.

I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.

You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.

I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.

If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.

It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.

You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.

But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!

This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts.

Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.

@whoolly said in Switchvox phone issues:

Vendor insisted he has never had any VOIP issues with Sonicwall and didn't want to budge on that.

Even while it doesn't work. So you know that he'll say this to other customers now, even after this one. Chances are, he's had problems at all customers. SonicWall is culprit #1 for VoIP issues. I mean that literally. I get a call that someone has VoIP audio issues, my first question is always "Do you have a SonicWall?" Nine times out of ten, the answer is yes and nine times out of those ten, the SW was the issue. It's nearly a sure bet with audio issues.

Had you led this question purely with "I have these audio issues..." we'd have said "I bet you have a SonicWall."

Just wanted to add @bj to this thread that I think a $100-ish Cloud Router from Mikrotik would blow most hardware away, including Ubiquiti, on pure performance. With the $50 and under models you are still getting 1 million PPS. The new cloud router series really has a crazy amount of power.

This still coming from a pure PPS (packets per second) point of view.

I think the cheapest cloud router has 12 to 16 cores That would only count for the core routers I am more familiar with (12 to 24 now) in the $500 range.

Very poor marketing in the states but very popular with western country WISPS.

@Mike-Davis said in FreePBX and SonicWall intermittent inbound calls:

@FiyaFly Well, it inconsistent is how it was behaving. 🙂

Fair point. Fair point indeed. lol. I will admit, I have a rule of thumb with inconsistent problems. If it's on a computer, first assumption is hardware.
For something like this, first assumption is Firewall, and more specifically NAT.

I updated the firmware and its working now. Thank you to all who helped.

@scottalanmiller Ha! I meant to say working at the level asking for more responsibilities, in addition to what your current role requires.

Dell has there fair share of quality control issues with laptops and and desktops anymore. The laptops have been plagued by motherboard isues.

@thecreativeone91 said:

http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-R470T-Broadband-Changeable-Ethernet/dp/B005SYQBN8

If even shows it's poor engineering. The power connector is right on the edge of the chassis instead of in the center as it should be. Also why use a mickey mouse plug over a IEC C14 3 prong that is normal for network/servers.

It's the cheapest Chinese junk that money can't buy.

And then UTM is something completely different, that they also make.