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

    Open Ports on New Installation

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    14 Posts 5 Posters 2.0k 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.
    • K
      kpa
      last edited by

      Does your pfSense have a public IP address on its WAN? If it's behind another NAT router the open ports are caused by this other router. Compare the reported WAN address in the Webgui against what the GRC page reports as its idea of your IP address.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        BrucexLing
        last edited by

        Thank you kpa for your feedback.  My WAN address is definitely a public IP address.  It is assigned by my satellite ISP.  It is reflected in both the pfSense Webgui and the GRC record of IP.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DerelictD
          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
          last edited by

          That scan is certainly not of a pfSense install in the default configuration. It would return nothing (all "stealth") on all ports. It is scanning or receiving results from something upstream of you.

          Diagnostics > Packet capture on interface WAN. Set the number of packets to 0. Start it, run a Shields up scan, and stop it.

          You will probably not see any of those attempts hit your WAN. You certainly won't see the TCP SYNACKs that GRC is seeing leaving your WAN.

          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • PippinP
            Pippin
            last edited by

            Yeah ^^^
            Could also connect only a PC directly to satellite modem and scan again, probably the same result.

            I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
            Halton Arp

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

              That clearly is not pfsense with those ports open, its something in front of pfsense or something you have forwarded too.  Pfsense sure not going to be listening on 445, ftp and telnet…  135 and 139 etc..

              Not sure what your scanning there Bruce but it sure and the hell is not pfsense ;)

              Derelict suggestion right on the money - I would highly suggest you sniff and then scan.. you would see something like this if packets are actually making it to pfsense.

              portscan.jpg
              portscan.jpg_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
              • B
                BrucexLing
                last edited by

                Thanks guys for putting me straight.  I will come up to speed with interpreting packet capture soon.  In the mean time I have just swapped back to an old Billion router and run a ShieldsUp and of course got the same open port pattern as before.  There must be something going on in the satellite delivery of internet that I am yet to understand.  My WAN IP is definitely a Class C Public address.  I will follow this up with the provider.  Thanks again for your helpful words.

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

                  To be honest the ports you showing open are quite common ports than an ISP would block..  1002 for example is old MS netmeeting locator service port.  Port 1720 is also a netmeeting used port. 5000 UPnP, etc.  I could see many a isp blocking those..  And the typical server ports, 21-23 and 80,443 and 25,110,143 all email related inbound. etc. etc..

                  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
                  • DerelictD
                    Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                    last edited by

                    That is just a quick scan GRC does of common ports. The other scan with the bands of blocks is more telling of some automated system.

                    I am guessing that a satellite provider does not want internet noise actually using transponder time so they are just eating inbound connections before they go up to the satellite and making them go away. Though I would probably RST them instead of SYNACK them. They might have their reasons.

                    I would also search your provider's help for inbound connections and port forwards and see what they have to say.

                    Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                    A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                    DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                    Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                      ^ yeah that makes complete sense Derelict why send the traffic up to the sat, back down to the subscriber to just to be denied. But what is the point of giving the user a public IP if they are not going to allow unsolicated inbound traffic to them.  Why not just put them behind a nat, and let them have some sort of interface/portal to setup the forwards they need?  What system in place do they use to check if port is open before allowing the traffic to the actual user?

                      I have no experience with sat connections.  Off to do some reading ;)

                      But I for sure could understand them not wanting to send noise eating up valuable sat time/bandwidth, etc.

                      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
                      • B
                        BrucexLing
                        last edited by

                        My provider responded with the following explanation:

                        The effect is due to the Transparent Performance Enhancing Proxy (TPEP). If the Transport Protocol (TP) component of TPEP were to be turned off for your service, the effect would disappear. However, the performance of your service would also take a dive.

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