New COD MWII Blocked By pfSense

EmJeezy

mine is set to:

I will say i do have my dns resolver enabled too ->

johnpoz

I didn't find any that didn't have a record.. From the ones that he showed no response for. I queried for them and they all responded.

But like that one with loginservice.prod in the name - if that doesn't get an answer, it highly unlikely to be able to login ;)

rcoleman-netgate

@emjeezy Is DNS resolver running? Check Status->Services

EmJeezy

@rcoleman-netgate

it is running ->

johnpoz

@rcoleman-netgate he got a response for the ngx nvidia one - even though did seem delayed..

But don't see any other responses - maybe they were delayed as well, and the sniff stopped before they came in? But yeah checking to make sure they do respond would be step 1 in trying to figure out what is going on.

rcoleman-netgate

How about going to Diagnostics->DNS Lookup and running a few of those?
I couldn't get the ergeron one to resolve but I did get steampowered to

EmJeezy

@johnpoz just tried to resolve this from my pc with a simple nslookup + a ping 'iw9.steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net'..nothing.. are you able to resolve that on your end..?

EmJeezy

@rcoleman-netgate

EmJeezy

Also set a static google dns on my pc, flushed dns cache and tried sigining into COD, same issue...

johnpoz

@emjeezy said in New COD MWII Blocked By pfSense:

'iw9.steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net

Yeah no problems here

; <<>> DiG 9.18.1-1ubuntu1.2-Ubuntu <<>> iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net @192.168.9.253
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 21888
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net. 1608 IN A 185.34.106.26

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.253#53(192.168.9.253) (UDP)
;; WHEN: Mon Oct 31 13:27:17 CDT 2022
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 86

Make sure you didn't typo it.. you have a . in there vs -

Do a query on pfsense directly with +trace, and could show you were its failing in resolving.

[22.05-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: dig iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net +trace

; <<>> DiG 9.16.26 <<>> iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net +trace
;; global options: +cmd
.                       59493   IN      NS      i.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      j.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      k.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      l.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      m.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      a.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      b.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      c.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      d.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      e.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      f.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      g.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      NS      h.root-servers.net.
.                       59493   IN      RRSIG   NS 8 0 518400 20221113050000 20221031040000 18733 . nYRaOu1wLMKLz7qtu6iyVbQdbCptnVf2aQb2/iNS9Eh9fnKJY/4Gj14e k7kC2Mwrfi304rbrv128fD9sJ6EX26LHOXt4lYTKI0abzYHtYNwCx17d wm1MA/oiaA7C9lLj5OdF0DraMl6go2FF0F9DtNdnOksSW1AjNlAX3R7T BTRzLiDxEf0123vW4oS8vO0dCVmK+dZ72RqPycUY2cGj5m4bXrKdcfdZ c2I/dV3761SILlh9yIw/ujo3HzFe5cHT5yZ+x/cBecdO+I9/DqoOUOq9 T2Cw/olYIMG+Jghaul5/ETfSUZ8p736KTQPOiZfRsaI/LsPABlNvTZ/2 IYxPuQ==
;; Received 525 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 1 ms

net.                    172800  IN      NS      j.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      e.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      k.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      g.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      c.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      m.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      l.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      b.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      d.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      f.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      h.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      a.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    172800  IN      NS      i.gtld-servers.net.
net.                    86400   IN      DS      35886 8 2 7862B27F5F516EBE19680444D4CE5E762981931842C465F00236401D 8BD973EE
net.                    86400   IN      RRSIG   DS 8 1 86400 20221113170000 20221031160000 18733 . b2QFjzsdbjugDaHMb0z6E/Gi/21nGXkcHiyeAnDBJvyBf8Oc9O5iErBh Dm/ItjC/ZVVaI6DtqbkFuCBtW4OqD9nVMfZl1kppln7Wy1y/5PuyQAFV Xts9PyDLZYcAk10XmSe50m0FRp15NBupiNLepPYbRSSm7l866MqMmsd1 1T7Hx8Y51oqLELb5RRRkJ0kGyV8Al4yhFg9oZtimprT4KUouoKTGgMTl vWI2JeOv5MISdys6Fvc/zaViW9CTzRrR4iP2OQv9XA6T4jzyHKP94xwD QskihTM23cO08ZKOc1zD2FjGYbja3iNtlS2pjnMsm/kx7TvoXAkJF5Fk EZgTSQ==
;; Received 1204 bytes from 202.12.27.33#53(m.root-servers.net) in 61 ms

demonware.net.          172800  IN      NS      dns3.easydns.org.
demonware.net.          172800  IN      NS      dns1.easydns.com.
demonware.net.          172800  IN      NS      dns2.easydns.net.
demonware.net.          172800  IN      NS      dns4.easydns.info.
A1RT98BS5QGC9NFI51S9HCI47ULJG6JH.net. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - A1RTLNPGULOGN7B9A62SHJE1U3TTP8DR NS SOA RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC3PARAM
A1RT98BS5QGC9NFI51S9HCI47ULJG6JH.net. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20221107073404 20221031052404 57635 net. r5UTHe04CrX84rlUl5E5k4gB+bFPj1vBcci0HHNgHgf0mS5SZaYRmzEq aZBAM1cAvrsMaOx28mjDz10RuOvu+RE2RpfGTIELjn94ymxvZUPPRCZ6 g4RS+89e04YijkQlMw9go4/7ZKkDA3LT+LgxX+LCisYlBoS8GFKyWQfX ZVLiglsGRvAbpKUsc1oAfnZ+yYn/2g3yx1VchAqsAd7YHw==
TA25FU84S76EUD659DBEH1SFOASD4VL7.net. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - TA288SAGQ250LBG11JFBMGCLUPT84FCJ NS DS RRSIG
TA25FU84S76EUD659DBEH1SFOASD4VL7.net. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20221105062652 20221029051652 57635 net. W7omB+op6WqcUFXhA5Jbh/hYqAyKy+MYUbNAyh/4DJJ4QNgQLA039kbW /Jdi/DYiBG2XbzU4kVDrTNL/7HamJ+FvtH0YqewH5HuZcF4DqQ9822/K EO9PsrMeXEHh7VuFRf4rKxn72EY9tGLzj4jKN5yM+YQUjY2Yczl62alQ JPThd8cT4y9Iks7s+eF/E5UOaq805OSm0SnaM1NisGSjIA==
;; Received 781 bytes from 2001:503:eea3::30#53(g.gtld-servers.net) in 50 ms

iw9-steam-loginservice.prod.demonware.net. 300 IN A 185.34.106.26
;; Received 114 bytes from 2620:49:3::10#53(dns3.easydns.org) in 200 ms

[22.05-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root:

EmJeezy

@johnpoz

Ok, my pfsense is resolving it successfully. My fault for having that '.' in there on the domain ->

EmJeezy

So check this out. Hit the firewall log to check for blocks (status>system logs>firewall). First cleared the firewall so i could start with a fresh empty log. Fired up COD and started banging at the 'retry' connection/login button ->

Refreshed firewall log. Right away I can see some unexpected related blocks on 3075 ->

Despite 3075 being open on my firewall, NAT and firewall rule (both udp and tcp) ->

albeit 3075 is not a listed port activision mentioned to open however, if you look at the connection baseline I took while successfully connected to COD over my hotspot, you'll notice an ip that if im not mistaken lives in the same subnet as the COD IP shown in my successful connection. That 185 address should be a COD ip is what i'm saying.This is everything COD was connected to when the connection was successful ->

This makes me feel like something still may be blocking on the firewall side..

EmJeezy

Also does it strike anyone else as odd, looking at the successful connection baseline, the connected ports are none of what activision has advised to open for COD...

johnpoz

@emjeezy again again going to say this.. You have zero need of a port forward for this to work.

You understand most of the planet does not allow unsolicited inbound traffic. you have any idea how many people are on cgnat, and or UPnP isn't on... You think billy at 13 years old mom will him adjust the internet router they got from the isp to allow for port forwarding?

You say it works on your vpn - there is no way that is allowing inbound traffic...

What your showing in your firewall log is the source port btw, not the destination port. The source port is meaningless with your port forward.

So lets start again - after you remove all your port forwards.. With a full sniff showing the complete connection attempts and actual answers to your dns queries from the client..

Also why do you have 8.8.8.8 and quad9 as dns.. Out of the box pfsense resolves, it doesn't forward.. Why do you have those setup as dns? So your forwarding?

EmJeezy

@johnpoz

presuming this is indeed a DNS related problem, statically assigning a DNS to the client computer should eliminate the firewall from the 'dns equation' straight away and solve the problem at least temporarily right?

Will try another pcap..

EmJeezy

@johnpoz said in New COD MWII Blocked By pfSense:

Also why do you have 8.8.8.8 and quad9 as dns.. Out of the box pfsense resolves, it doesn't forward.. Why do you have those setup as dns? So your forwarding?

Those are simply my preferred upstream dns servers. I am not doing doing dns query forwarding.

johnpoz

@emjeezy said in New COD MWII Blocked By pfSense:

am not doing doing dns query forwarding.

Then what is the point of setting them.. Any client asking pfsense for dns isn't going to use them.

Sure if you set your client to use say 8.8.8.8 that would eliminate any issues with pfsense dns, but still need to see a sniff and the dns queries and their answers, and then connection attempts to those. In your other sniff we saw a query for something that clearly from its name was some sort of login server, with no answer. And no other attempts etc. to something that was failing, etc.

I would make sure you do this test with min other traffic, for example your rdp traffic.. You can not exclude such stuff in the gui, but you can with just using tcpdump on pfsense to do the capture.

Here is the thing, pfsense doesn't block anything unless you set it up to do that.. There is no freaking way any sort of unsolicited inbound traffic is needed to "login" If there was - it sure wouldn't work via a vpn that is for sure.

For all we know the server is sending you a RST, maybe he doesn't like your IP? Or maybe he just isn't answering - if that was the case we would see a SYN go out, but no SYN, ACK - and then a bunch of attempts at retrans, etc. Or maybe your just not getting any answer at all because your isp has a peering problem getting to that IP, etc.

You can not even test if you can get there, because that IP I get back for that login fqdn isn't answering pings.

EmJeezy

@johnpoz We know that my pfsense dns is resolving successfully and that COD works fine behind the pfsense firewall over a vpn and also works fine over a hot spot, all from the same computer. Humm..yah the more this adds up, it is feeling like issue is on the ISP end..

EmJeezy

Thought of a good game plan while driving, that may just skip us over the complexities of a pcap and that is the good ol ‘process of elimination’. I plan to bypass my pfsense firewall and hardline directly to my bridge mode isp modem. From there, I will test COD. If it works then I plan to backup my pfsense config and then factory reset it, throw a generic config on there, plug my pc back into pfsense and test again…

I’ll keep you posted.

johnpoz

@emjeezy said in New COD MWII Blocked By pfSense:

I plan to bypass my pfsense firewall and hardline directly to my bridge mode isp modem.

while that is a plan, it doesn't always work out - the one thing that people forget is that your IP will change. So while it is a good plan.. Just because it works with IP X, doesn't mean that the ISP or the peering doesn't have a problem when you have IP Y..

So unless your going to make sure you use the same mac, and get the same IP when you change devices - its "still" possible to be upstream issue, or the destination blocking your specific IP.

But I agree its a good test.. Anything that provides more info leads us to what the actual root cause is.