Need to allow access to DVR in the WAN network to LAN computers
-
But I don't see any multicast. But if you limited to IP then you wouldn't see that.
Why wouldn't you see it? It's still IP.
FWIW, I can see multicast on my network.
-
I tried a capture again but selecting UDP only with the device IP.
Tried against LAN and WAN interface but did not capture anything UDP related. So either the firewall is blocking all UDP to/from the device or there was in fact none.
-
^^^^
One thing I did recently was buy a cheap 5 port managed switch, which I configured for port mirroring. This allows me to insert the switch between 2 devices and use Wireshark to monitor the traffic. With that, you could insert the switch between the DVR & pfSense box to see what's there, with far more info than the pfSense packet capture provides. You can also watch in real time. -
"with far more info than the pfSense packet capture provides. "
How is that exactly.. Why would the packet capture in pfsense not see what that the switch would, when pfsense is 1/2 of that conversation anyway??
Clearly your getting a 401 error saying your NOT Authorized…
As to seeing if limiting to IP, I meant if he was limiting his sniff to a specific IP he would not see multicast traffic since it would be to the multicast address not his specific IP like 192.168.0.3 etc..
In the first part of the sniff your client ask for a manifest of something - and you get that just fine.
But then after that you just get 401.. Why have no idea, not sure what exactly your trying to do, other than dvr is giving you 401, and then your client gets something from the dvr. So there are 3 different conversations here all started by your client 192.168.0.3. First one he gets a manifest of something and that conversation is closed with your normal fin,ack , then he starts another conversation gets told 401, and he closes the conversation with RST, then he gets some other info profile.xml and then again he closes the conversation with RST
So that is a bad conversation, or is that a good conversation that works? Where is a good conversation where you start viewing video, since maybe that is sent in a different protocol?? Either way I wouldn't think you would want to see 401 errors.. Do you have to log in or something?? Do devices have to be authed before hand??
-
"with far more info than the pfSense packet capture provides. "
How is that exactly.. Why would the packet capture in pfsense not see what that the switch would, when pfsense is 1/2 of that conversation anyway??
Perhaps I should clarify. In an earlier post, packet capture as used in pfSense was listed. This does not show as much detail as you'd see in Wireshark. In order to see that level of detail, you have to download the cap file and then use something like Wireshark to view it.
I use Wireshark frequently and find that between the capture and display filters, it's a lot easier to isolate what you're looking for. You can also watch in real time and click on any frame to examine it's contents while the capture continues.
Back when I was using Linux for my firewall, I had Wireshark available on it. Since moving to pfSense, I bought a managed switch, which I can insert to monitor traffic.
-
"You can also watch in real time and click on any frame to examine it's contents while the capture continues."
This is very true!! If your sniffing with wireshark off a say a spanned port then sure you can watch traffic live. This should also be possible right off pfsense just use say tcpdump sending to your wireshark running on your pc.. you could do this with a windows machine via plink.exe or via ssh if you have it installed to ssh to the pfsense box, start the tcpdump, etc.
I thought we had gone over that before, but if not can for sure post up an example of how to do it.
That might be a good thing to add to the wiki, if not already there?
-
^^^^
One issue with sending tcpdump or even Wireshark over the wire is you could be affecting the traffic you're trying to monitor. That may or may not be an problem, depending on what you're looking for. When I had a Linux firewall, I could switch my KVM to the firewall computer, start up the desktop and then Wireshark. That computer did not normally have a desktop running, an option you don't get with Windows. However, I now have a managed switch that's small enough to keep in my notebook computer bag, so it's handy when I need it. In fact, I store it in ThinkPad floppy drive case. ;) -
"you could be affecting the traffic you're trying to monitor."
How so? Just don't capture the traffic your using to make the remote connection if capturing the interface your hitting pfsense on, etc.
While I agree with you that having a small switch with the ability to span ports is a great addition to your tool bag. And with gig smart switches beings so cheap now a days its a great thing to have and affordable for even the home enthusiast helping out their buddies, etc.
In this scenario.. Doing a packet capture on pfsense or if want real time via remote, etc. I don't see what that buys us exactly. How does it answer his 401 error problem?
-
"with far more info than the pfSense packet capture provides. "
How is that exactly.. Why would the packet capture in pfsense not see what that the switch would, when pfsense is 1/2 of that conversation anyway??
Clearly your getting a 401 error saying your NOT Authorized…
As to seeing if limiting to IP, I meant if he was limiting his sniff to a specific IP he would not see multicast traffic since it would be to the multicast address not his specific IP like 192.168.0.3 etc..
In the first part of the sniff your client ask for a manifest of something - and you get that just fine.
But then after that you just get 401.. Why have no idea, not sure what exactly your trying to do, other than dvr is giving you 401, and then your client gets something from the dvr. So there are 3 different conversations here all started by your client 192.168.0.3. First one he gets a manifest of something and that conversation is closed with your normal fin,ack , then he starts another conversation gets told 401, and he closes the conversation with RST, then he gets some other info profile.xml and then again he closes the conversation with RST
So that is a bad conversation, or is that a good conversation that works? Where is a good conversation where you start viewing video, since maybe that is sent in a different protocol?? Either way I wouldn't think you would want to see 401 errors.. Do you have to log in or something?? Do devices have to be authed before hand??
Thank you for your interest.
I will have to ask the DVR provider if its need to pre authorized the client, but I suspect that it does not.
I know that have to enter a user/pass combination to connect to the DVR. But that is entered in the client program and I know that its get accepted because if I enter a wrong one the application returns a credentials error. In the case of the packet capture I posted I used the correct user/pass. Also when I connect to the DVR using Internet Explorer I also have to enter the credentials and get accepted.
In IE there is an option to see the stream per channel in jpeg mode. When I select that option I can see each channel in a set of jpegs stream really nice.
The application is to show all channels at the same time probably in full streaming instead of jpegs. Once the credentials are accepted the application starts a loading phase which fails.
-
How so? Just don't capture the traffic your using to make the remote connection if capturing the interface your hitting pfsense on, etc.
If you're running into congestion/timing issues etc. Not common, but possible. As for your traffic, that's one more thing to filter. On my systems, I actually have a button on the display filter bar for a display filter, to not show traffic containing the MAC of the computer I'm running Wireshark on.
How does it answer his 401 error problem?
Problem? What problem??? ;)
Actually, this thread shows how traffic monitoring can be used to help identify a problem. However, that not authorized error indicates the problem is likely not in pfSense.
-
How so? Just don't capture the traffic your using to make the remote connection if capturing the interface your hitting pfsense on, etc.
If you're running into congestion/timing issues etc. Not common, but possible. As for your traffic, that's one more thing to filter. On my systems, I actually have a button on the display filter bar for a display filter, to not show traffic containing the MAC of the computer I'm running Wireshark on.
How does it answer his 401 error problem?
Problem? What problem??? ;)
Actually, this thread shows how traffic monitoring can be used to help identify a problem. However, that not authorized error indicates the problem is likely not in pfSense.
There is a problem related to the pfsense.
The network and the computers were able to connect to the DVR via the iWatch application before pfsense was implemented.
The previous Router/Firewall was a Netgear Wirelless device with 4/8 ports. I took out the Netgear and replace it by the pfsense. Now computers can not connect to the DVR via iWatch. Clearly there is something that pfsense does that Netgear dont or viceversa.
-
Dude how exactly is pfsense even involved in conversation between 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.99
I would assume these IPs on on the same network 192.168.0/24
Your computers can not connect from WHERE?? They are on the wan side of pfsense.. Is pfsense NATTING? The sniff you gave was 2 devices on the same network it would seem to me.
If your iwatch is running on device A on network ?? Sniff on that interface of pfsense. If dvr is on network B, also sniff on that interface of pfsense.. Your sniff shows 2 devices which unless you have some odd mask set are on the same network. Are your bridging in pfsense? Pfsense should not have even seen that traffic.
Please draw up your network and what networks are where and where are the devices and are you natting between these networks and or doing any port forwarding, etc.
Is 192.168.0.99 pfsense WAN ip?? And your port forwarding into your dvr behind pfsense on some other network? If so do the sniff on the LAN interface of pfsense. If your dvr is trying to send something to the client on your wan via multicast then no your client would never see that traffic nor would pfsense show it on a sniff on the wan interface.
-
This has become a long thread. I am going to refresh the network structure.
Cable Modem -> Switch1
| | |
| | |
D1 D2 F1
|
|
Switch2 -> LAND1 = DVR - 192.168.0.99 - Static IP
D2 = President Computer
F1 = Router/Firewall - 192.168.0.3 DHCP Assign by Cable ModemF1 now is the pfsense, before was a Netgear Wireless Router
LAN - 192.168.1.0/24
Computers in LAN want to connect to DVR. With Netgear was successful, with pfsense is not
-
Recalling the problem.
LAN computers connect to the DVR via IE successfully and can see one channel at a time in jpeg mode.
LAN computers fail to connect to IE to see the full stream with all channels at the same time.
LAN computers fail to connect to the DVR via iWatch which provide all the channels streams at same time. -
In the captures where you get the unauthorized errors, I see http. Is that what the DVR uses? Should it be https? The fact that you're getting that error indicates you're reaching the DVR. This is where Wireshark can come in handy, running on the computer you're trying to reach the DVR with. See what's going out and coming back with the Netgear. Then compare with pfSense. Without that, we're just guessing.
-
In the captures where you get the unauthorized errors, I see http. Is that what the DVR uses? Should it be https? The fact that you're getting that error indicates you're reaching the DVR. This is where Wireshark can come in handy, running on the computer you're trying to reach the DVR with. See what's going out and coming back with the Netgear. Then compare with pfSense. Without that, we're just guessing.
I can not test with the Netgear anymore it was converted to a AP mode Wireless router. Maybe what I could do is installing Wireshark in the President computer and capture from that one to the DVR. That is going to take some time.
-
Any chance you could get that Netgear back, at least temporarily? It would help to have a comparison. Also, according to your diagram, the president's computer doesn't connect through the pfSense computer. If the problem is on the LAN, then you have to test from there.
-
So are you natting between your 192.168.0/24 network and your lan network 192.168.1/24 – I Have to assume so since your sniff which had to have been done on pfsense wan only showed the 192.168.0.3 address of pfsense..
So what does a good sniff look like from D2 with wireshark when talking to the dvr doing what they want.
And what does a sniff look like on both the wan and lan of pfsense when it doesn't work.All I can tell you is there were RST sent and a 401 error. There was no video in that conversation at all.. So have no idea how video actually gets passed. Is quite possible the client says hey send me data to 192.168.1.x which your dvr would send to your cable router since that would be its gateway.
How did you have your previous router setup.. My guess it you were just using it as AP and dvr and client were on the same layer 2 network via either wifi or plugged into the switch ports on your wifi router. Or you were all behind the netgear and not split like this.
Why do you not do this??
cablemodem -- pfsense -- switches... All your other devices!! dvr and clients and even any AP.
So they are all on the same layer 2 network.
How your setup now your devices are not on the same layer 2, so multicast is not going to work. Broadcasting for names or such not going to work. Your natting between devices, and if not natting you would have a asymmetrical routing problem between devices on wan of pfsense and lan of pfsense.
What exactly is this split setup getting you?
-
Any chance you could get that Netgear back, at least temporarily? It would help to have a comparison.
Unlikely. This is a live system. Taking the pfsense out to put the Netgear will require for my team to be at the client site a Sunday when they are not working.
-
Following on what johnpoz says, did this work on the LAN through the Netgear? While multicasts can pass through a router, it may be necessary for configuration to allow for it. Broadcasts are generally not passed through a router at all. This means that things that work on a flat network might not when passing through a router.
While many of us here are quite familiar with IP and firewalls, we're not likely to be familiar with that DVR, so we need accurate info.
