Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    pfsense port forwarding/ WAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    40 Posts 5 Posters 5.1k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • L
      learn @Bob.Dig
      last edited by

      @bob-dig said in pfsense port forwarding/ WAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103):

      specific to your environment.

      suchh as ?

      please help !

      johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • johnpozJ
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @learn
        last edited by

        @learn so is default deny your seeing actually to the port your trying to forward? You just show a deny, you don't so that port udp or tcp even that is being blocked.

        From your firewall rule showing 0/0 B tells me that rule has never been evaluated. So no traffic has hit your wan that would match your port forward and firewall rule.

        rule.jpg

        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

        L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • L
          learn @johnpoz
          last edited by

          @johnpoz im trying to do a remote access so im using tcp with a custom port instead of 3389

          johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • johnpozJ
            johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @learn
            last edited by johnpoz

            @learn again you rule not showing any hits.

            Here I setup a rule for port 6060, never going to work because my 192.168.9.100 forwarding too not listening on that port

            hit.jpg

            But notice when I try and go there (from can you see me . org), that after my rule shows it was evaluated, its no longer 0/0 B, but shows that it was used in the states table.

            Your deny actually shows to your wan IP on the 6060 port your trying to access.. via TCP? You didn't show the full log, you just show "something" was denied..

            An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
            If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
            Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
            SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              learn @johnpoz
              last edited by

              @johnpoz i tried differnt ports even the deafult port and did a diagnostic test port ff273697-5fcc-4952-982e-ed6275052e06-image.png it shows the port is good but still not able to access

              johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • johnpozJ
                johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @learn
                last edited by johnpoz

                @learn that is just a local test not remote..

                Again - your rules is not showing any traffic actually hit it, that 0/0 B in the states column shows that pfsense saw no traffic to that port.

                What was actually logged as blocked.. You just show a deny.. Here would be an actual block

                Here is a log showing a block, see it is too my wan IP, I blocked out last 2 octets of my public IP.. But see there is the port is was going to, and that its TCP, and a SYN.

                deny.jpg

                From your wan rule showing that 0/0 B shows that nothing has hit your public IP on that port to be forwarded. Or the numbers would change from 0/0 even if the port forward didn't actually work.

                An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  learn @johnpoz
                  last edited by

                  @johnpoz Untitled1.png here what t shows in my log

                  Bob.DigB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • Bob.DigB
                    Bob.Dig LAYER 8 @learn
                    last edited by Bob.Dig

                    @learn 3389 ain't 6060.

                    L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • L
                      learn @Bob.Dig
                      last edited by

                      @bob-dig i changed to do port testing but none worked

                      Bob.DigB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Bob.DigB
                        Bob.Dig LAYER 8 @learn
                        last edited by Bob.Dig

                        @learn But it is important to test so test again towards 6060 and show the log and don't hide the beginning of those IPs!

                        L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • L
                          learn @Bob.Dig
                          last edited by

                          @bob-dig did what you said it it the same result!

                          L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • L
                            learn @learn
                            last edited by

                            @learn does pfblockerng and openvpn can block portforwarding? im lost here

                            johnpozJ GertjanG 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • johnpozJ
                              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @learn
                              last edited by

                              @learn no those do not block a port forward.

                              As mentioned that block is 3389, your port you forwarded was 6060.. if you are forwarding 6060 to 3389, then you need to hit pfsense wan on 6060, so it can forward it to 3389 on your end device.

                              Your port forward you posted was sending 6060 to 6060.. Not 6060 to 3389.

                              But that has nothing to do with it, your firewall rule allowing 6060 saw no hits, so no your port forward would never work no matter what port you wanted to send to your actual device behind pfsense.

                              If you want to remote desktop to something behind pfsense, and you want to use 6060 on the public internet, then your port forward should be 6060 to 3389, but you need to hit pfsense wan IP on port 6060..

                              On a side note, I would not recommend opening remote desktop to the public internet, be it you change the port or not. If your going to do that, you should make sure you lock down which source IPs can talk to pfsense on that port to be forwarded.

                              The proper way to remote into stuff on your network from the internet, would be to vpn to pfsense from your remote client.

                              An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                              If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                              Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                              SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                              L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • GertjanG
                                Gertjan @learn
                                last edited by Gertjan

                                @learn
                                Take note : when the pfSense NAT rule works, you have to check one last thing :
                                The firewall of the device (PC° where you want to use 3389 = probably MS Remote Desktop.

                                Microsoft, by default, when MS remote desktop is activated, accepts only connections from it's LAN.
                                Example : if your PC has IP 192.168.1.10/24, then connections from any 192.168.1.x/24 are accepted. Others, like an IP from the Internet, are refused.
                                Solution : adapt the related Windows incoming firewall rule - or make your own rule.

                                Again : just be ready to check and correct if needed.

                                edit : as said above : Microsoft has warned their OS users that MS remote desktop should not be used over public networks.

                                No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                Edit : and where are the logs ??

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • L
                                  learn @johnpoz
                                  last edited by

                                  @johnpoz thank you so much for your help can you please show me the ideal way to port forward 6060 to 3389

                                  johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • johnpozJ
                                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator @learn
                                    last edited by johnpoz

                                    @learn the ideal way would not be a port forward, and use a vpn. Unless you know the specific source IP you would be coming from and only allow it, opening up remote desktop to the public internet is not a good idea, even if you change the port.

                                    But to forward port 6060 to 3389 is simple in your port forward just change the destination port to 3389

                                    portforward.jpg

                                    But again if your port on the public side is 6060, then for your rule to work no matter what port you send it to, you have to hit pfsense on that port. Your firewall rule you posted never showed any traffic to port 6060, the states column was 0/0

                                    An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                    If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                    Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                    SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • L
                                      learn @johnpoz
                                      last edited by

                                      @johnpoz sorry for any inconvenience but nothing seems to be working

                                      GertjanG J johnpozJ 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • GertjanG
                                        Gertjan @learn
                                        last edited by Gertjan

                                        @learn

                                        Like johnpoz, I created a NAT rule :

                                        1929d98a-be62-4fe2-aa09-5a22cbdb5a7a-image.png

                                        which creates a WAN pass firewall rule :

                                        3903b186-ce1c-4706-bfba-7028882433c4-image.png

                                        Note the IP 192.168.1.4 : an old 2008R2 Microsoft server - it has MSRDP activated on port 3389.

                                        The firewall counter in front of the rule show traffic.
                                        @home, I used a.b.c.d:6060 as the destination where a.b.c.d is my WAN IP, where the 2008R2 server lives (@work).

                                        I could access the remote desktop from my 2008R2 server just fine.

                                        The creation of the NAT rule :

                                        83d517b9-8d23-46a8-9f5e-55318051720d-image.png

                                        and I moved the related WAN firewall rule at the top, before the block rules (if any) - and save + apply.

                                        Behind the screens, I had also to "NAT" my ISP router which is placed in front of pfSense, where I NAT port 6060 TCP to port 6060, to 192.168.10.3, my pfSEnse WAN IP.

                                        No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                        Edit : and where are the logs ??

                                        L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J
                                          Jarhead @learn
                                          last edited by

                                          @learn said in pfsense port forwarding/ WAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103):

                                          @johnpoz sorry for any inconvenience but nothing seems to be working

                                          If you aren't using the default port (3389), you'd have to add the port to the ip in the remote desktop connection.
                                          Are you doing that?
                                          rdp.png

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • L
                                            learn @Gertjan
                                            last edited by

                                            @gertjan brother i have the same configuration as you did the only thing that im not doing is

                                            @gertjan said in pfsense port forwarding/ WAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103):

                                            Behind the screens, I had also to "NAT" my ISP router which is placed in front of pfSense, where I NAT port 6060 TCP to port 6060, to 192.168.10.3, my pfSEnse WAN IP.

                                            is this .

                                            i will try to do this and see if it'll works thank you so much for your patience and help

                                            GertjanG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.