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

    Problem Forwarding Ports

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    8 Posts 3 Posters 2.2k 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.
    • T
      thetechguy
      last edited by

      Hi Guys,

      I have spent the last 2 days scanning through the forums and PF sense setup guide trying to get my head around why I can't seem to get my ports forwarded.

      I have Technicolour TG797n modem IP: 10.0.0.38 (the ip was 192.168.0.1 but I gave it to the PF sense box).
      PF Sense box (Psychical PC, not virtual) IP: 192.168.0.1
      SBS2007 Server IP: 192.168.0.2 Also DHCP and DNS Server.
      RDP / Terminal Server (VM inside of SBS server) IP: 192.168.0.4

      Before setting up the PF sense box I used port 3391 for RDP to the RDP / Terminal Server and port 3390 for RDP to the SBS box.

      In the technicolor modem I have these ports forwarded to the PF sense box 192.168.0.1 and have also tried to remove forwarded ports completely but can't get a connection through,

      I have the ports in NAT set as WAN interface / TCP protocol  / Source Port Any / Destination Port From 3391 too  3391 /  Redirect Target IP 192.168.0.4 / Target Port 3391.
      And the same settings for 3390 & 192.168.0.2.

      The only thing I can think of is to uncheck the "block private network" option which I have not done but think I might have to as my LAN network is all 192.xxx.xxx.xxx except for the modem.

      Sorry to be a pain, anyone have any suggestions or ideas of what to look at next?

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

        https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Port_Forward_Troubleshooting

        Have you verified that pfsense is seeing the traffic and then forwarding?  Simple sniff all of 30 seconds.. How exactly are you testing??  From wan or you trying to do a nat loopback?

        I have to question the sanity in opening up RDP to the public internet in the first place to be honest.  What about your host firewalls, can tell you for sure the out of the box windows firewall is going to block that from a network different than the one they are on that is for sure..

        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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • T
          thetechguy
          last edited by

          I have not tested that it is seeing the traffic, I will look into that as I have not done any form of test except for forwarding the ports and trying to connect from an external connection.

          I did not think that opening RDP to public was a security risk, it was setup like that when I first seen the network and the server has always been open using the out of the box modem from Telstra from memory the SBS box is running an AVG file server AV.

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

            Your exposing a machine to public internet with user name and password as only protection.. Let me guess Administrator - so now the script kiddies can bang on it all day long trying passwords..

            Do you have this rdp limited to specific source IPs in the firewall?

            I don't have it open, but show in the last day 27 hits to 3389..  If it was open, then they would try and log in.. Or some other exploit to the remote desktop service.. If you need remote access to your network then vpn into it.

            Opening ANYTHING to the public net is a security risk!!

            3389.png
            3389.png_thumb

            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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • T
              thetechguy
              last edited by

              Makes sense, I was not aware having RDP internet facing was a problem, I would have thought there would be other security measures like limiting login attempts?

              However, from what you have said I will advise the owner to not use RDP and setup a VN instead.

              I will still need to forward ports 25 & 995 for mail and 443 for OWA, after more research it seems like my problem may come from not having bridge mode or DMZ on the technicolor modem and double nat can cause problems?

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

                yes if your behind a nat then you would have to forward whatever ports you want pfsense to forward to pfsense.  Or you would have to put pfsense in the dmz of your router.

                Administrator account doesn't lock out, and if it did you would want random brute force attempts to lock out your admin account??

                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

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  thetechguy
                  last edited by

                  Turned out double nating was the culplit, no matter how I tried to set it up I could not get the modem to forward the ports to the PFsense box, in the end I put the modem into bridge mode and all my problems were solved!

                  Thanks  :D

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • KOMK
                    KOM
                    last edited by

                    If you have the ability to switch it to bridged then that's the preferred solution over double-NAT anyway.

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