Https NAT not working
-
Completely unnecessary.
Supposed to be, yes I know that. That's why I said just for grins. Weird things do sometimes happen.
-
Generally not.
-
Configured for 444 right now and no I did not reboot after changing the web redirect.
I will give this a try in a few.
I conclude there is something on 192.168.1.6 that is misbehaving on port 443 and it's not pfSense.
Next step is probably Diagnostics > States, Diagnostics > Packet Capture, or logs from the server at 192.168.1.6.
Ok I will look at it again, I know there are a few other services that have their own webserver but I did not see them with netstat or lsof on port 443.
Thanks for the input though, I've been fighting this for a while.
-
And it was also a fresh apache2 install and it gave no errors when starting, just a little more info..
-
If web server is configured to listen on 444 then the 443 rule is not going to work.
-
You could port forward from 443 to 444 though.
Set the dest port to 443 and the NAT port to 444.
-
You could port forward from 443 to 444 though.
Set the dest port to 443 and the NAT port to 444.
Tried this and 'site cant be reached' 'err_connection_timed_out'
-
That will only work if your TLS web server is listening on 444. Only you know what's going on on your network/servers.
-
From local network
-
Then I guess you need to figure out why connections from outside aren't completing. Packet capture on LAN port 444 and post.
-
Solved !!
Well not really but after 2 hours of tcpdump and no traffic ever reaching port 443, I decided to look at the trusty Uverse gateway for info I saw that it has port 443 used for the WAP if you have any wireless receivers, and then a quick little google turned up the the same from ATT.After redoing the NAT on 444 to 444 the webserver does work.
Not an ideal solution, but its all I have now.Thank you to everyone that responded.
-
#5 on this list: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Port_Forward_Troubleshooting
-
#5 on this list: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Port_Forward_Troubleshooting
Agreed, I just never thought it would be used by them for device control and I haven't always had the wireless receivers, and 443 has worked for me in the past.
