Jump to content

PathfinderNetworks

Members
  • Content Count

    751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

Posts posted by PathfinderNetworks


  1. I'm attempting to configure SWG using our NFR licenses on our HQ network so I can get some real testing going with this.  I'm trying to add our static WAN address in the dashboard under Network Location as I want to use the DNS filtering option.  But it won't accept the address.  It keeps coming back with 'Error. Must be a valid External WAN IP Address'.  It is a valid address I am entering (we have a block of 5 static addresses but I'm only using the address that is assigned to our router as that is the address that all outgoing Internet access uses).  

    I'm following the guidance in this KB but can't get past that first step. 

    https://kb.support.business.avast.com/GetPublicArticle?title=How-do-I-configure-my-router-s-DNS-for-SWG

    Also, how does the DNS filtering work if we have clients that do not have a static WAN IP address and/or multiple remote offices we want to protect at the DNS level?  I'm specifically thinking of a private school I have as a client. I want to protect their Chromebooks- so I can only use the DNS option to do so. But they don't have a static WAN address.... 


  2. So I think the issue with my rep not being in contact much is that they seem to not be getting any emails I send to them (or, if they are getting and replying, I'm not getting the replies).  I do get emails from them (such as a couple that were generated as a result of this thread) so I don't think it's that they aren't getting to me.  Is there any way Avast can take a look to see why my emails to them aren't getting through?  I can shoot off an email to a different Avast account to test if that is easier.  Just let me know what address to send to. 


  3. 4 hours ago, A+ Computers said:

    for all those saying they'll try it when they get some NFR licenses, have you reached out to your avast account manager and asked for NFR licensing?

    I did, and I got 10 NFR licenses added to our account for testing.

    I've not done that but will try.  I'm not even sure if I have the same rep.  I get zero communication from them. 


  4. Do we Avast partners have access to Patch Management NFR licenses so we can use it internally for training?  I know we have access to all the other products as NFR.  I question this because, under Patch Management in our Services tab it doesn't show any NFR licenses like all the other products do.  See the screen grab below.  Under Antivirus, for example, it specifically shows the NFR licensing information.  But, under Patch Management, there is nothing like that. 

     

    patch.JPG.2a0cf882059ba30184b209ab9a4d2b68.JPG


  5. SWG is significantly different than the Content Filter service. In fact, you aren't supposed to use both.  If you use SWG you don't want to use the traditional Content Filter. 

    SWG is more like Cisco Umbrella.  It's not only a content filter but also scans the traffic for malware, phishing sites, etc. 

    All the CloudCare partners should have gotten an email about this new product back at the end of February.  Here is what that email said:

    "

    A lot of businesses today have started embracing new technologies to streamline operations, increase employee productivity, and acquire new customers.

    The upside of this digital transformation is the number of opportunities it brings to improve business agility and enhance performance, however the downside is cybersecurity. Technology is everywhere and keeping it protected is proving more challenging, especially with the rise of sophisticated phishing schemes that target unsuspecting users. In fact, 78% of security professionals believe that the biggest threat to security in an SMB is the negligence among the employees for security practices.

    Another security risk that SMBs are facing today is BYOD. SMBs have adopted mobile, cloud, and social, as part of their daily operations to support business productivity. An increasing number of them are accessing the corporate network from their home or another remote site, easily bypassing the security controls the business has in place. As a result, SMBs need to ensure that they have a  robust solution in place to secure their data, devices, and employees even when they are out of the office. Having an on-prem security appliance is no longer sufficient.

    Avast Business has proudly developed a solution, in partnership with Zscaler, tailored specifically  for SMBs - Avast Secure Web Gateway. The Secure Web Gateway protects SMBs against cybersecurity threats including malicious web traffic, phishing, and many more!

    At a glance benefits:

    1. Advanced security - through deep real-time analysis
    2. Reduced Complexity -  a “less than 10-min deployment” (IT service provider quote)
    3. Increased Speed - by eliminating all appliance bottlenecks and reducing latency
    4. Simplified IT infrastructure and lower TCO

    Interested to learn more? Contact us now.


    Kind regards,

    Your Avast Business Team


  6. I beta tested it when they were first getting it ready but haven't tried it since.  I ran in to some very serious problems with it and even spoke to them about it- but they didn't seem to quite understand the issue.  The issue I had was, in Active Directory networks (which most of mine are) it, essentially, breaks Active Directory.  It's pretty obvious why- as Active Directory is highly reliant on DNS being setup properly.  If you use the client version of SWG then it bypasses the local DNS server.  That breaks AD.  If you use just the DNS forwarding option (like you would do with OpenDNS, for example) then no issues there.  But you get less protection that way as it's purely a DNS based system at that point.  

    I don't know if they've resolved that AD issue yet or not- or how they even might do it. The only option I could see would be to have a mechanism in place where you can enter the AD domain(s) in to SWG as a policy and then it would direct all AD DNS traffic to the local AD DNS server(s).  

    Obviously that's a deal breaker as far as the SWG client version is concerned. 

    I may try it again soon to see if that is still an issue.  It's also possible it was only an issue on AD domains that had a localdomain.com setup instead of the more standard localdomain.local setup.  The AD I tested it on was a localdomain.com type.  Still, as common as that type of setup is, there needs to be a way around it if they expect anyone to adopt SWG. 

×
×
  • Create New...