Skip to main content

windows server 2003 - Why won't my router forward ports correctly?



I have a Linksys RV042 dual-wan router (which directly responds to any traffic at *.*.*.*) and my FTP server is running Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2 and IIS.
My server's local IP address is *.*.*.*



My router's port forwarding configuration looks like this:



DNS [UDP/53~53]->*.*.*.*
HTTP [TCP/80~80]->*.*.*.*
FTP [TCP/20~21]->*.*.*.*




The forwarded port configuration looks like this:





MXToolBox.com reports that my ports are open.



My server responds perfectly to ftp:/// from any computer on my local network. Anonymous access to my FTP server is allowed from anywhere, and my server responds to the stardard FTP ports: 20-21



But when anyone tries to access ftp://joinedsoftware.com/ there is no response.




I have tested DNS from internal and external computers, and everything seems to resolve without any problems.



Using SmartFTP, this is what the log shows:



[12:45:20] SmartFTP v4.0.1122.0
[12:45:21] Resolving host name "joinedsoftware.com"
[12:45:21] Connecting to *.*.*.* Port: 21
[12:45:21] Connected to joinedsoftware.com.
[12:45:21] 220 Microsoft FTP Service
[12:45:21] USER anonymous

[12:45:21] 331 Anonymous access allowed, send identity (e-mail name) as password
[12:45:21] PASS (hidden)
[12:45:21] 230 Anonymous user logged in.
[12:45:21] SYST
[12:45:21] 215 Windows_NT
[12:45:21] Detected Server Type: Windows NT
[12:45:21] RTT: 6.702 ms
[12:45:21] FEAT
[12:45:21] 211-FEAT
[12:45:21] SIZE

[12:45:21] MDTM
[12:45:21] 211 END
[12:45:21] Detected Server Software: Microsoft IIS FTP Service
[12:45:21] TYPE I
[12:45:21] 200 Type set to I.
[12:45:21] REST 0
[12:45:21] 350 Restarting at 0.
[12:45:21] PWD
[12:45:21] 257 "/" is current directory.
[12:45:21] TYPE A

[12:45:21] 200 Type set to A.
[12:45:21] PASV
[12:45:21] 227 Entering Passive Mode (*,*,*,*,6,64).
[12:45:21] Opening data connection to *.*.*.* Port: 1600
[12:45:21] LIST -aL
[12:45:34] 425 Can't open data connection.
[12:45:34] PORT *,*,*,*,10,252
[12:45:34] 200 PORT command successful.
[12:45:34] LIST -aL
[12:45:34] 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for /bin/ls.

[12:45:55] 425 Can't open data connection.
[12:46:25] NOOP
[12:46:25] 200 NOOP command successful.
[12:46:55] NOOP
[12:46:55] 200 NOOP command successful.
[12:47:25] NOOP
[12:47:25] 200 NOOP command successful.


What could be causing this scenario? Are there known issues with this router, or special router configurations that need to be set?



Answer



Because FTP is an awful protocol (there, I said it!):



[12:45:21] 227 Entering Passive Mode (173,14,245,129,6,64).
[12:45:21] Opening data connection to 173.14.245.129 Port: 1600
[12:45:21] LIST -aL
[12:45:34] 425 Can't open data connection.
[12:45:34] PORT 10,0,0,200,10,252
[12:45:34] 200 PORT command successful.
[12:45:34] LIST -aL

[12:45:34] 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for /bin/ls.
[12:45:55] 425 Can't open data connection.


You see where your FTP client attempts to open a second connection to 173.14.245.129:1600? That's the 'data channel', which uses a seperate high-number port for return traffic/data. In Passive Mode, the server says "Please connect to x.x.x.x:y for the data channel."



You will have to configure a range of data channel port numbers to use in your FTP server and then allow them through the firewall. Active mode will probably not work unless you are allowing all outbound traffic.



Also, for the love of whatever computer Gods there may or may not be, please do not open NetBIOS and LDAP to the public internet and then post your IP address on ServerFault!


Comments

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?

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,

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