Website won't load: operation timed out
well clearly you leaving pfsense and getting to the wan via trace.
So what are you rules on your lan?
Don't understand the use of /16 for your local network - do you have 65K clients? But that is not going to be cause of your problem.
Is your browser still pointing to proxy? From your traceroute and your able to resolve.
So lets be clear is this ALL websites or just 1 or a couple?
And for the problemwebsite
That would indicate to me its just 1 site?
Finduilas last edited by Finduilas
I will post the rules on Monday. (no remote accesss).
/16 is a gift from the past (schoolnetwork that grow very fast). For the moment we have +- 500 devices).
Of record: The whole network should be reconfigured. It's a work in progress, but not yet possible, as it is in use most of the time and I'm the only IT'er.
The problem is with "some" websites. Most of the time we didn't notice it (thinking it's a bad website), but this time it is the website of an important supplier. So we need this website every day.
"browser time out" error.
That doesn't seem like DNS unless it's resolving wrong. Assuming that really is the error seen on clients.
But yeah still unclear what clients are using for DNS here; is it pfSense?
And what mode pfSense is using for DNS; is it using the DNS Forwarder? The DNS Resolver in forwading mode or the default Resolver settings?
but this time it is the website of an important supplier.
But you are resolving this website to its IP.. So unless that is wrong? And your accessing other websites, and your not using proxy or ips.. How would the issue be related to pfsense?
Since on pfsense wan when you try and access this site - does pfsense sense the syn out its wan, what do you get back - if anything?
Picture of LAN-rules:
DNS-server 10.0.0.10 is an Windows Server. But the PFSense router is "new", configured by someone else (can't get in touch anymore).
DNS-resolver was enabled, default settings (normally, see screenshots). DNS forwarding is disabled.
Gertjan last edited by Gertjan
LAN rules :
The second rule is overlapped by the third rule - remove that second rule, because it's TCP only, thus very strange at best.
Rule 3 and 4 - the last 2 - handle all traffic just fine.
DNS forwarding is disabled.
So pfSense doesn't use 10.0.0.10 to resolve. It goes directly to "the source".
Are you using DHCP on your LAN ? How is the DNS setup on your LAN clients ? Static ? By DHCP ? Check the DHCP server page : what is the DNS to hand over to LAN clients (if set) ?
Btw : why suing this local "10.0.0.10" DNS server (which probably forwards to again another DNS server, or it resolves directly, as pfSense does )?
Again - if you can resolve it, and just doesn't answer.. Unless your using proxy or ips.. pfsense not going to be doing anything different with traffic going there vs going to google.com
I would do a packet capture to prove to yourself pfsense is sending on your syn or not to the site.. There is nothing in your setup that you have shown that would stop one site over another site.
If you're using Squid/Squidguard you should really make sure both Squid and clients coming through it are using the same DNS server(s). If you are handing 10.0.0.10 to clients to use you should set that in Squid also.
However that would not explain why it still fails with Squid disabled. I agree I think a packet capture showing the failed connection would be the next step here.
10 24 ms 23 ms 34 ms 235..belgacom.be [91..*.235]
He seems to be able to trace there, so unless he is running proxy or ips - its not going to be pfsense issue.. Maybe a mtu problem getting there?
Might be helpful if actually posted the site fqdn.. So we could test it even.. What is the big deal about posting some public site on the internet... If I had problem going to say www.cnn.com how would saying I can not get to www.cnn.com be any sort of privacy concern? Unless this is some sort of p0rn site or something you don't want anyone knowing you visit ;)
We are using a DNS server (10.0.0.10) because we have a domain. The public DNS of that server is 184.108.40.206.
The url of the problem site is:
The lanrules are changed. (no overwrites anymore).
@johnpoz packet capture
15:51:27.776037 IP my.ip.. > 220.127.116.11.80: tcp 0
15:51:27.777709 IP my.ip.. > 18.104.22.168.80: tcp 0
15:51:28.025853 IP my.ip.. > 22.214.171.124.80: tcp 0
15:51:30.776740 IP my.ip...16614 > 126.96.36.199.80: tcp 0
15:51:30.778734 IP my.ip..29026 > 188.8.131.52.80: tcp 0
15:51:31.026104 IP my.ip...41937 > 184.108.40.206.80: tcp 0
there is a sonicwall there with Gateway GEO-IP Filter enabled.
are you sure is not the sonicwall that have a ban on you?
5:51:27.777709 IP my.ip.. > 220.127.116.11.80: tcp 0
15:51:28.025853 IP my.ip.. > 18.104.22.168.80: tcp 0
Well you sending.. but getting nothing back.. So its not pfsense blocking you.
Yup I get this
I am able to connect to it from the UK. It then invites me to login over http. If I try to use https I get a bad cert.
Those things tell me whoever is managing that site isn't paying much attention so you could well have been blocked by some automated system nobody ever checks.
It then invites me to login over http
Wow - that is a major vendor of yours? I would find a different vendor ;)
Yeah it's bad in numerous ways!
Sure hope maybe they do bathroom supplies or something and nothing to do with IT ;) Whatever they do, guess they don't want to do business with the US ;)
.. or italy, they do catering services anyway, i doubt they want to send food and staff to usa anyway :)
that subdomain is probably for sales representatives only
But maybe a secretary in the US wants to have an event their company is throwing in Belgium catered ;) Blocking IPs from other countries prob not the best way to grow the business ;)
i can see that web page using a proxy
from a security point of view it is useless
Ok, I'm glad we found the problem.. I didn't got the Sonicwall message, and because the router is pretty new, I thought it was my own fault..
The vendor is now aware of the problem. They will fix it. Thanks for the help, sorry it wasn't really a pfsense issue.