12 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Andrew commented  ·  March 11, 2013 5:27 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  If this is not implemented, we at least need to be able to see more information about modified rules and the ability to add comments so we know why they're modified.

• Clayton Dillard commented  ·  November 29, 2012 6:42 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This is a very much needed feature.

• Jason Mougeot commented  ·  October 24, 2011 8:18 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This should be default for any IPS system! I work with Cisco IPS, Dragon, IBM ISS, SourceFire and Trendmicro systems and this is a must for proper IPS filtering.

• MichaelR commented  ·  August 19, 2011 10:48 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Yeah, gread idea! This is a huuuuuge problem because of different network services published on the same IP. There's no way to handle this secure right now...

• Thomas commented  ·  March 16, 2010 11:23 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  It would be great if that was implemented. At the moment you have to disable a complete rule instead of just eliminating false positives apearing inside your own network. Also as Elmar stated the exceptions are a bit useless without the possibility to combine source and destination via AND.

• Bob Alfson commented  ·  March 15, 2010 4:26 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Yes, you should shift your votes over to the first one: http://feature.astaro.com/forums/17359-astaro-gateway-feature-requests/suggestions/178333-ips-granular-ips-exclusions?ref=title

• flaserra commented  ·  March 10, 2010 3:40 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think it is a duplicate post, there is also another request like this

• bjack985 commented  ·  November 11, 2009 3:13 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I agree, a v6 type configuration would be better that what's there now, but it needs to be flexible for new rules and edits to existing rules with the ability to revert an edited rule back to it's factory syntax.
  There should also be a way to fetch rules files from a central location. I'm not going to pretend to know the details of that methodology, but it seems doable.

• Cotto commented  ·  June 26, 2009 5:09 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Yes, that`s what i need to! Astaro, give us this feature!!!

• BrucekConvergent commented  ·  June 25, 2009 11:38 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'm outta votes, but we do need a way to add our own rules, as we could in Version 6. I think the current method for managing the automatic ruleset is OK,but we need the ability to add custom rules again.

• Bob Alfson commented  ·  June 24, 2009 8:27 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  ellell, do you mean you want to be able to write your own rules?

• Elmar Haag commented  ·  May 6, 2009 3:26 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think it would be sufficient to change the "exceptions" dialogue the conjunction "source" and "destination network" from an "OR" to an "AND"