Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Level 7

Search for an Operand - am I the only one missing it?

Working as an administrator and a Service Provider (as well internal as well as for 3rd party customers) in a big company, our rule sets contain a lot of rules.

The rule set grew historically and is quite long. Only half of all rules use lists, whereas the others match on Operands (e.g. Connection.IP equals AND URL matches*.

If I open the search and type in, the search will not find the related rule.

It will find the string if entered in the Name field as well as in the Comment field, but not the criteria (operand) of the rule it is used in!?

I know I could replace all operands by lists and only have a single list entry, which would bypass the insufficiency of the McAfee WebGateway search function.

I still refuse to modify more than a hundred rules.

So I opened a feature modification request and got the simple answer:

“Not in consideration at this time

This request has been reviewed by product management. There are no current plans to implement this feature.

However, if other customers request the same functionality it may get consideration for future release.”

Am I the only one thinking this is a basic and fundamental capability of a search function?

How have you managed this?

Or are there admins out there, who’d like to have this feature as well and are willing to open a feature modification request as well?

...and who knows, we might then see a complete search function in a future release…

Greetings from Berlin/Germany


0 Kudos
1 Reply
Level 10

Re: Search for an Operand - am I the only one missing it?

I haven't noticed that as I use only list in rules..Will test it

0 Kudos