Skip to main content

dhcp - lan to wan connection refused by windows firewall

I have plenty of experience with LAN's and bridges however this is my first time using a WAN style setup...



here is a diagram of my network



WAN (public ip & 10.1.10.1)---COMP1 (10.1.10.2)
                           ---
                           ---LAN(10.1.10.3 & 192.168.1.1) --- COMP2 (192.168.1.2)



the WAN gateway of LAN is setup as 10.1.10.1
and the port forward rules



WAN:A -> COMP1:B
WAN:C -> LAN(10.1.10.3):D
LAN:D -> COMP2:D


from the public internet connecting to WAN(public ip):C connects me to COMP2:D




from COMP1 connecting to LAN(10.1.10.3):D connects me to COMP2:D. However netstat on COMP2 lists the connection as LOCAL(COMP2:D) REMOTE(COMP2:XYZ) when I was expecting REMOTE(COMP1:XYZ)



Yet the connection COMP2->WAN:A never works... I don't know what's wrong.
What would make COMP2 think a remote connection from an external network was from itself? Shouldn't LAN see a 10.1.10.? destination address and quickly route it to the WAN gateway which should then treat it as a normal LAN local packet address?



I don't see any custom NAT rules on either router as far as I can tell.





COMP1





  • IP: 10.1.10.2

  • SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0

  • IP GATEWAY: 10.1.10.1

  • DHCP SERVER: ...

  • DNS SERVER: ...



COMP2





  • IP: 192.168.1.2

  • SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0

  • default gateway 192.168.1.1

  • dns server: 10.1.10.1

  • $ ip r



    default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0  proto static  metric 1024
    169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0  scope link  metric 1000

    192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.2





couldn't justify fiddling with network settings so instead I just moved COMP2 directly to WAN and it still didn't work... turns out it was windows firewall that wasn't working correctly, even with a port exception to allow any program to listen on port B on any network from any ip from any port... disabling windows firewall ends up being the only solution...



FIREWALL DETAILS




General




  • Enabled: checked

  • Action: Allow the connection



    Programs and Services


  • Programs: All programs that meet the specified conditions


  • Application Packages/Services: Apply to all.../Apply to all...




    Remote Computers


  • Only allow connections from these computers: unchecked


  • Skip the rule for connections from these computers: unchecked



    Protocols and Ports


  • Protocol type: TCP


  • Local port: Specific Ports: 8080

  • Remote port: All Ports



    Scope



  • Local Ip address: Any IP addres


  • Remote IP address: Any IP address



    Advanced


  • Domain profile: checked


  • Private profile: checked

  • Public profile: checked

  • Interface types: all interface types

  • edge traversal: allow edge traversal




    Local Principals


  • Only allow connections from these users: unchecked


  • Skip this rule for connections from these users: unchecked



    Remote Users


  • Only allow connections from these users: unchecked


  • Skip this rule for connections from these users: unchecked



just checked again and port 8080 only works if I disable the windows 'public' firewall, the 'private' firewall doesn't block port 8080... (note COMP2 now has the ip 10.1.10.3 because it is now connected directly to WAN like COMP1)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more