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

    Ports, rules, NAT

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    46 Posts 5 Posters 5.6k 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.
    • johnpozJ
      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
      last edited by

      So looks to me the client sent syn S and then server sent back syn,ack S.

      But then the client says no thanks with a R

      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
      • R
        Rod-It
        last edited by

        Sorry, I am not a network person.

        Are we saying this is backend server dropping/rejecting or that things look ok here?

        Both IIS box and Exchange will reboot shortly for completeness.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R
          Rod-It
          last edited by

          Apologies, didn't see your latter reply

          Ok so it's IIS still saying it's not happy - at least I have a focus area.

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

            Im not sure who the 138.x box is, but he is the client as he sends the syn... The server at 192.x box answers with syn,ack - this is normal start of a conversation.. But then the 138.x box sends R (RST) which is basically a F Off sort of thing..

            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
            • KOMK
              KOM
              last edited by

              Strange that the client is sending the reset. There are very limited circumstances for that to happen, and I don't see any that I know of applying here.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • R
                Rod-It
                last edited by

                Just to be clear, this happens if I send the NAT to the IIS relay OR the Exchange box directly.

                This does NOT affect clients on the LAN or any other VLAN, only requests that come in through the PfSense box.

                The IIS box has it's firewall disabled for a moment, but this should not be it as internal clients work.

                Both IIS and Exchange have been rebooted.

                While I want to rule out AV because internal clients are working, I am happy to remove/disable it for now.

                As an FYI - this is my home lab, not a production system so this is not massively critical, but a PITA nonetheless.

                Something else that may or may not be relevant (I dont think it is, but i'l include it anyway).

                About 2 days ago (probably some 6-8 hours before this started) I moved my domains DNS from DynDNS to CloudFlare - I have tried with and without proxied DNS, neither matter, however because the port shows as open on my public IP directly, I dont believe this to be related, though I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

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

                  If you have time, I'd love to see one more test run with the Level of Detail set to high so I can see the packet timestamp values.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • R
                    Rod-It
                    last edited by

                    17:16:46.428834 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 138.201.87.102.48424: tcp 0
                    17:16:46.469427 IP 138.201.87.102.48424 > 192.168.1.35.443: tcp 0
                    17:16:46.522427 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 138.201.87.102.61203: tcp 0
                    17:16:47.487447 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 138.201.87.102.61529: tcp 0
                    17:16:47.886778 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 138.201.87.102.61068: tcp 0
                    17:16:48.538018 IP 95.216.36.80.35970 > 192.168.1.35.443: tcp 0
                    17:16:48.538399 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 95.216.36.80.35970: tcp 0
                    17:16:48.642150 IP 82.132.247.36.52308 > 192.168.1.35.443: tcp 55
                    17:16:48.645073 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 82.132.247.36.52308: tcp 109
                    17:16:48.649273 IP 82.132.247.36.52308 > 192.168.1.35.443: tcp 46

                    Guys - thank you for the help, really, it means a lot to know there are people out there willing to spend their weekends trying to help others.

                    I do believe 'CloudFlare' are to blame, I removed all of the DNS proxy connections once more and it's working again.

                    Does the above negate you wanting a further run?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • kiokomanK
                      kiokoman LAYER 8
                      last edited by

                      if it is working for you now, i'm happy enought

                      ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(◕_◕)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
                      Please do not use chat/PM to ask for help
                      we must focus on silencing this @guest character. we must make up lies and alter the copyrights !
                      Don't forget to Upvote with the 👍 button for any post you find to be helpful.

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

                        If you're satisfied that it's working and you've found the cause then no, you don't need to do that other test run.

                        I'm still curious as to what was really going on. I'm not sure how a DNS proxy issue would cause your client to send a RST. Where were these DNS proxy connections configured? Via some Cloudflare GUI or is this something you're doing on the pfSense box?

                        If this was indeed a remote issue then that would explain why it was working fine until one day when it wasn't.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • R
                          Rod-It
                          last edited by

                          You realise I will most likely be sticking around finding other guides and helping where I can, and no doubt I will have more questions.

                          So far though I really do like PfSense.

                          I am doing more with it within 2 months than I ever thought I would do with any networking product, I even sold my router - which by the way I really liked too (Netgear Nighthawk R7000)

                          CloudFlare can proxy DNS requests, so assuming my website (or in this case, webmail) points to 81.x.x.x, CloudFlare makes it their own IP, so it looks like 101.x.x.x, while my IP had the ports open and CloudFlare did too, it didnt seem to be relaying HTTPS connections to me, but instead to itself - I found an article on their site about this, something to do with how SSL works with their certificates - this would also explain why I was not seeing the traffic hit the box - which by the way I now see when someone connects to 443.

                          Phew... nightmare.

                          Apologies for the wild chase there, but just having someone else there helped me to find the issue.

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

                            Glad we could help.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • R
                              Rod-It
                              last edited by

                              I want to complete this topic by also stating I now know why my DNS proxy was re-enabled (sometimes we overthink things).

                              In PfSense DynamicDNS is an option to enable Proxying DNS - this turned it back on after I disabled it on CloudFlare directly. Makes sense why it was working then stopped. Using this option is great, but when you need HTTP/S traffic to be directed, directly and a given IP you must disable proxying (I can't find their guide right now, I've lost it already).

                              Here is the article linked from within PfSense that I obviously missed

                              https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-virtual-dns-ddos-mitigation-and-global-distribution-for-dns-traffic/

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • J
                                jilted
                                last edited by

                                I just wanna know why your IP is scanning me like crazy... :P Or are you behind some kind of carrier NAT?
                                alt text

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • R
                                  Rod-It
                                  last edited by

                                  Those IPs are nothing to do with me, they are also hitting me.

                                  They are based in Germany and Finland, I am not, nor do I have any services from Germany or Finland.

                                  Using the link above posted by @kiokoman they are on an abuse list, therefore they are likely bots or malicious servers.

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

                                    @Rod-It said in Ports, rules, NAT:

                                    138.201.87.102

                                    That is the IP of the device you were saying wasn't working ;)

                                    In your sniffs.
                                    17:16:46.469427 IP 138.201.87.102.48424 > 192.168.1.35.443: tcp 0
                                    17:16:46.522427 IP 192.168.1.35.443 > 138.201.87.102.61203: tcp 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

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • R
                                      Rod-It
                                      last edited by

                                      I never said that IP wasn't working, you have a snip of a packet capture as asked for. Any external IPs within are purely coincidental.

                                      I didnt validate any external IPs to the forum of my own.

                                      I know my topic was a little confusing at times, but I never stated any specific public IP I was using.

                                      If anything I stated no external IPs were getting in, but some were frequently trying - and those are likely what you see from the logs.

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

                                        Ah well that makes more sense why its sent a R then ;)

                                        I would block those IPs from talking to your services. Especially if they are on block lists.

                                        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
                                        • R
                                          Rod-It
                                          last edited by

                                          I have, the poster above, like yourself believed that IP belonged to me - but none of them do :)

                                          Side question based on the new addition to the topic though, without SquidGuard or any other type of filtering, can PF block known malicious or bad IPs?

                                          Also, if there is a way I can mark this as resolved, please let me know and I will do so.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • kiokomanK
                                            kiokoman LAYER 8
                                            last edited by

                                            you can use suricata/snort for example

                                            ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(◕_◕)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
                                            Please do not use chat/PM to ask for help
                                            we must focus on silencing this @guest character. we must make up lies and alter the copyrights !
                                            Don't forget to Upvote with the 👍 button for any post you find to be helpful.

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