Pfsense open ports [SOLVED]
-
That's a little more reassuring. I cannot connect to any ports using ncat, or simply by accessing the service. I do not get the webportal like the OP.
I believe you are right, I'm sure T-Mobile uses some sort of in between to do QoS and other fancy filtering.
I'm using Zenmap (nmap gui), and it gives me option of "intensive" scan, and it did show 3 hops before it got to my actual computer. So what you are suggesting is that I ended up testing one of the nodes instead of my box @ home? Sort of neat how that works out. More interesting that some/partial of my connections are being made to the node, and possibly the node is making connections on my behalf like a MITM.
Jimp, as always you're very informative and helpful :-D
The ports would only be open if you opened them. Everything is blocked by default.
A lot depends on not only where you run the scan from but from what kind of router you are running the scan from behind.
If you are running a scan from a system behind a proxy (ftp proxy, web proxy, etc) you may be getting lured into that proxy instead of actually hitting the box you are trying to scan.
A scan from somewhere else like GRC is likely to be more accurate than an nmap scan from a 3G dongle/tethering setup.
If you can hit the web port on pfSense, you can login. If you can't login, you are probably hitting something else – not your firewall.
A packet capture on WAN during the scan could confirm more of this.
-
You must be hitting something else along the way that is redirecting ports into itself.
The most common example of this is pfSense's FTP proxy. If you do an nmap scan from behind a pfSense router for an external IP, it will show FTP open if you have the FTP proxy on, because the proxy is grabbing the FTP traffic.
If you really want to know for sure, PM me an IP and I'll nmap it from a known good source and tell you what is really open. :-)
-
The ports would only be open if you opened them. Everything is blocked by default.
A lot depends on not only where you run the scan from but from what kind of router you are running the scan from behind.
If you are running a scan from a system behind a proxy (ftp proxy, web proxy, etc) you may be getting lured into that proxy instead of actually hitting the box you are trying to scan.
A scan from somewhere else like GRC is likely to be more accurate than an nmap scan from a 3G dongle/tethering setup.
If you can hit the web port on pfSense, you can login. If you can't login, you are probably hitting something else – not your firewall.
A packet capture on WAN during the scan could confirm more of this.
I would be in shock if I somehow got redirected to someone else's pfsense 2.0 box because I was behind a proxy. Plus I can connect to the SSH port, shouldnt this need to be added manually or was there an option I must have accidentally selected?
I tried the filter option and I do not see any reference to my webpage connection, but I did see a reference to a blocked ping when I tried to ping it.
The error message I receive from the web interface after I try to log in is this:
An HTTP_REFERER was detected other than what is defined in System -> Advanced (https://mywebserver). You can disable this check if needed in System -> Advanced -> Admin. -
Did you enable the SSH service? What packages did you install? If you have a mobile, could you try connecting to the web portal that way, see if you get the same error?
The ports would only be open if you opened them. Everything is blocked by default.
A lot depends on not only where you run the scan from but from what kind of router you are running the scan from behind.
If you are running a scan from a system behind a proxy (ftp proxy, web proxy, etc) you may be getting lured into that proxy instead of actually hitting the box you are trying to scan.
A scan from somewhere else like GRC is likely to be more accurate than an nmap scan from a 3G dongle/tethering setup.
If you can hit the web port on pfSense, you can login. If you can't login, you are probably hitting something else – not your firewall.
A packet capture on WAN during the scan could confirm more of this.
I would be in shock if I somehow got redirected to someone else's pfsense 2.0 box because I was behind a proxy. Plus I can connect to the SSH port, shouldnt this need to be added manually or was there an option I must have accidentally selected?
I tried the filter option and I do not see any reference to my webpage connection, but I did see a reference to a blocked ping when I tried to ping it.
The error message I receive from the web interface after I try to log in is this:
An HTTP_REFERER was detected other than what is defined in System -> Advanced (https://mywebserver). You can disable this check if needed in System -> Advanced -> Admin. -
Then you probably aren't getting proxied, you just have the port open for outside access on your WAN rules. It doesn't open itself… :-) (Or you are scanning from an interface/IP that has access)
-
vorgusa:
Nmap scan report for c-x-x-x-x.hsd1.fl.comcast.net (x.x.x.x) Host is up (0.10s latency). Not shown: 65529 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 5.4p1 (FreeBSD 20100308; protocol 2.0) 53/tcp open domain dnsmasq 2.55 80/tcp open http lighttpd 1.4.28 443/tcp open ssl/http lighttpd 1.4.28 2189/tcp open sip FreeBSD/8.1-PRERELEASE UPnP/1.0 MiniUPnPd/1.4 (Status: 501 Not Implemented) 40122/tcp open unknownYou really do seem to have overly permissive WAN rules. If you post a screenshot of them were we can advise what might be causing it. (I scanned 1-65535)
-
Something else people seem to forget about too is that if you have UPnP enabled, anything on LAN can open up and forward whatever ports it wants. Even if you aren't hitting the pfSense box with a scan you could be hitting a port forward that opened up via UPnP.
-
upnp is disabled by default correct?
-
Yes, upnp must be enabled by hand.
-
heavy1metal - I got nothing open when I scanned your IP. Though I only scanned 1-3000 due to it being slow (presumably since they were filtered)
-
Excellent :-) That covers all the "normal 1-1023" service ports anyway. I'm a bit worried about the OP's open ports, he mentioned he has a port open for torrent traffic I believe, possible he wild-carded the destination port by accident?
Also, did you scan from two IP addresses? Or is that the result of load balancing from a dual WAN setup? Or maybe for once in my life I had an US port scan me :-) So used to the Chinese trying to scan me checking if I'm an open proxy. Thank you for checking :-)
heavy1metal - I got nothing open when I scanned your IP. Though I only scanned 1-3000 due to it being slow (presumably since they were filtered)
-
I took screen shots of the dashboard, NAT, Rules, and upnp settings. UPNP status is empty and I do not see why upnp would end up leaving port 53 open, seems like all my open ports are pfsense services. I am masking IPs and stuff in the screen shots and they will be up soon. I forgot to take a screenshot of the general settings for the ssh connection though.
-
Very frustrating to post attachements! :)
-
Here are the last two
-
As I posted in my other thread, I have reset everything to factory defaults and reconfigured it again. I noticed that when I originally installed everything I never saw the startup wizard, so I have a feeling its related to that. I also experienced unusually high CPU usage while nothing was going on and my other unusual problems are gone. I will scan it tomorrow with nmap and see if the problems are fixed.
-
You have/had port 443 open to the public/world by not specifying a source address. Also torrents only require TCP, they do not use UDP packets.
As for the upnp, you might want to do a port scan and then watch what ports open up. Or try disabling it, and then do a scan.
As for port 53, would anyone know if the "upnp port mapping (for windows)" would be letting windows services open up ports?
Maybe pfsense is opening port 80 on behalf of itself? Unless you have a web server back there trying to get out?
Also I assume your torrent port is 40122? Sort of the only one open that looks out of place.
Just saw your system.txt, in there I saw
Mar 2 19:19:30 miniupnpd[12590]: HTTP listening on port 2189
Mar 2 19:19:30 miniupnpd[12590]: HTTP listening on port 2189Is upnp intended to open ports even if it is a service on pfsense that wants them open?
 -
After the factory defaults, I am still getting the ports open. The previous port 443 was done by the OpenVPN wizard because I designated that as the port for it. Right now I have OpenVPN at the default port (1194) and upnp enabled, but only for the LAN. The only port forwarding and Rules I have done are for Torrents and what the automated wizards has done.
PORT STATE SERVICE
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
1194/tcp open unknown
2189/tcp open unknown
40122/tcp open unknownWhy would the Upnp even be there if I selected it to only be there for the LAN section.. seems like PFSense services are before the Firewall
-
That is strange, and you're still able to access the web portal from work? If you tried now to log in does it give you that redirect error you were getting before?
-
Yep, same error and for some reason I can not get an IP from OpenVPN, but that might be a problem on my end. I will look into that tonight, but then again, I will probably go back to 1.2.3 if these ports keep showing up… I could probably try to manually block them using the firewall.
-
How is your network wired up?
Is that public IP directly on WAN, or do you have something else in front doing NAT?
Can you post the contents of /tmp/rules.debug - it might help show what the issue really is.
