We could go ahead and pop for an extra IP address on our Qualys account and submit those results for attestation, and I'm pretty sure that will pass, but that's a pricey solution. If the check box is selected, any FTP data connection through the security appliance must come from port20 or the connection is dropped. I think my favorite is #5, blocking the mouse sensor - I also like the idea of adding a little picture or note, and it's short and sweet. If so, could you please provide a screenshot of both the NAT policies? The above works fine but I need a rule to forward the range of TCP ports to a single TCP port. to compy with the audit you may have to change this new default behavior back to deny vs. drop. All rights reserved. Mousing over the question mark icon next to the Connections If you're hosting a public website behind that firewall, then ports 80 and/or 443 will be open and you may be running a WAF (Web Application Firewall) to detect and block XSS, SQL Injection, and other web application attacks. In this case as per my previous suggestion, its not productive and feasible to configure 1000+ NAT policies. Thanks a lot for your efforts in testing it out. It's all good, except I want the unused physical interface ports on the back of the Sonicwall to use the same network subnet (192.168.1.x) as the Sonicwall Switch. Please create two separate service objects with the same TCP port and directly use those service objects in the translated service field on the NAT policies. Apply firewall rules for intra-LAN traffic to/from the same interface How would I go about doing this? behind the SonicWALL listening on port 2121: The following options are also configured in the They actually gave us a custom firmware for the device (NSA240) and we applied it last night, but it still fails. Dynamic Ports Enable FTP Transformations for TCP port (s) in Service Object - FTP operates on TCP ports 20 and 21 where port 21 is the Control Port and 20 is Data Port. This normally takes the form of adding the IP addresses of this scanning service to the "whitelist" of the product or device. This should be the indirect way of mapping many to one ports only at service group / object level. Which is ironic, considering it is doing its job. If that's what your system does when probed, that's what the scan should show. - I'm currently having this problem with a Sonicwall E5500. the scanner is fooled into thinking that all ports are open. What ports could it possibly be seeing as open? Come for the solution, stay for everything else. If there is no business need and you wish to tighten security further, then you may consider the actions/suggestions highlighted. For example, if you want to connect to a gaming website, you will need to open specific ports to allow the game server access to your computer through the firewall. In reply to How to close DNS UDP ports? I had massive unexplained uploads on the WAN interface, which is how I disovered the issue. They have a requirement of all ports, 1024 and above, being open for their servers to transfer electronic orders. This value is overridden by the UDP Connection timeout you set for individual rules. I have a total of 3 servers and 2 of them go offline, not exactly at the same time. By white listing them in the SonicWall, it may move the firewall security controls to the software layer such as Windows Firewall or IPTables. But I don't use the Intrusion Prevention Service (if that's the same thing as the IDS referred to in the thread earlier). I previously had an issue with the same device failing on the recent OpenSSL vulnerability that was reported, yet SonicWALL claimed the TZ series was not affected. I have checked the logs and i don't see any events that have been labeled as "attacks". One of our clients has their own Trustwave account. If a request takes more than one packet. Again, this is for a single port. external collector is configured, as well as the physical capabilities of the particular model of SonicWALL security appliance. Unfortunately TrustWave is the only vendor that our client uses, and SonicWall is the only device they use so I was unable to compare with other vendors. - The default configuration allows FTP connections from port 20 but remaps outbound traffic to a port such as 1024. I just checked the firewall categories on my zywall, it doesn't have an explicit DOS-Option, but the Firewall activity and TCP/UDP Dropped should include that. under Firewall. Which is great, except that it has increased the time to run a scan from a few hours to 2+ days. When the Sonicwall encounters a high intensity scan, it is likely to drop the connections. In simple words, technically it is not possible to translate traffics sent on multiple ports to a single port on a NAT policy. Do we HAVE to have IPS licensed and running on the SonicWall for this to work? Didn't get an answer yet to my two proposals - did you try them? I found a KB link that explains the error. I hope this clarifies. For example, if you configure the port to be 76, then you must type <LAN IP Address>:76 into the Web . To configure advanced access rule options, select They said that even if you whitelist an IP address, the IDS engine still takes precedence over any ACL, and that's by design. Click OK, and Start Capture. It's all good, except I want the unused physical interface ports on the back of the Sonicwall to use the same network subnet (192.168.1.x) as the Sonicwall Switch. The bug was the firewall responded to tcp connections on an unopen port with the content filter block page. The Enable FTP Transformations for TCP port (s) in Service Object option allows you to select a Service Object to specify a custom control port for FTP traffic. The Connections section provides the ability to fine-tune the performance of the appliance to I may have to temporarily in order for them to complete a scan in a timely manner. I have two Access and NAT policies set up exactly the same with the only difference being the source IP address. page: Drop Source Routed Packets I cannot not tell you how many times these folks have saved my bacon. Enter the number of seconds of idle time you want to allow before UDP connections time out. I could disable https on the outside interface to pass this but that is cheating the system and not the route I want to go beside I would not be able to use any-connect if I disable https. I was thinking DOS too but I don't see any attacks in the log, do you know if DOS-attack logging is on by default on the sonicwall? I started with Experts Exchange in 2004 and it's been a mainstay of my professional computing life since. This topic has been locked by an administrator and is no longer open for commenting. Please check the link below and let us know if you have any queries or concerns: Please verify if the translated service object in the NAT policy is a service group and not an individual TCP port as you want. Any other settings on the sonicwall I need to configure to get a successful scan? SonicWall Support Port Settings Use this screen to view and configure Switch port settings. Many of our clients have Sonicwall devices. Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more. All rights Reserved. however only interesting traffic is passed. Copyright 2022 SonicWall. But if I disable the access rules for one of the two it's not effected, i can access external website from it. The event is then logged as a log event on the security appliance. - (Enabled by default.) The Port Settings feature lets you change the configuration of the ports on the Switch in order to find the best balance of speed and flow control according to your preferences. Bonus Flashback: Back on December 9, 2006, the first-ever Swedish astronaut launched to We have some documents stored on our SharePoint site and we have 1 user that when she clicks on an Excel file, it automatically downloads to her Downloads folder. All we have is basic firewall licensed, no other features. So the sonicwall sees the scan traffic as a potential DDoS attack and shuts it down. I simply want to plug my laptop into any unused port and be on the same subnet as the switch! I've even tried turning off "Prevent All" on the Intrusion Prevention screen. Nothing else ch Z showed me this article today and I thought it was good. The other returns: "Error: Original Source:Unknown service class". NAT policy from WAN IP mapped to internal IP with the same service group in the access rule. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions. It was bizarre. 3) Network-services Added services: named R!ATAFaxUDP 5060-5080 UDP ports 4) -Network-NAT Policy/Rules (2 entries) Named: No SIP Port Remap WAN-To-LAN & No SIP Port Remap LAN-To-WAN If you want all systems/ports that are accessible, check the firewall access rules (WAN zone to any other zone) and the NAT Policy table. We are having the same issue as the above mentioned Trustwave failed scan "network services has stopped responding" error on an NSA 240. It's been a few months since I've dealt with this, but I eventually contacted SonicWall support and after hours of them looking at the logs, they inevitably just chalked it up to "Our devices will not work with the TrustWave scan". The illustration below features the older Sonicwall port forwarding interface. Identical Sonicwall settings across the board with exception of WAN IP. The has two effects, it shows the port as open to an external scanner (it isnt) and the firewall sends back a thousand times more data in response. Please ensure the following network blocks have full, unobstructed, access in order to more accurately perform a vulnerability scan: 204.13.201.0/24, 64.37.231.0/24". Please go to "manage", "objects" in the left pane, and "service objects" if you are in the new Sonicwall port forwarding interface. I have an NSA 240 and don't have that problem. It has always pass but this month it started failing after I updated to ASA 9.1(5). This is a vulnerability scan, supposed to represent what anyone could find. Dynamic Ports Please click on Refresh option in the packet monitor page to see the traffic. Interesting, a SonicWALL TZ 210 Total Secure is failing for one of my clients on the same "Network Service Stopped Responding" vulnerabilityon a Trustwave scan. Force inbound and outbound FTP data connections to use default port 20 Welcome to the Snap! I don't think you need or want to make it a trusted network as this would negate the whole premise of a scan. That might give rise to that error. The client does have Intrusion Prevention enabled, but it definitely violates the spirit of the scan to go in and turn it off. Did you ever get a resolution on this please? 2020, 2121), SonicWALL drops the packets by default as it is not able to identify it as FTP traffic. Navigate to the "Advanced Monitor Filter" tab and enable all check boxes. When it fails for "network services has stopped responding", dispute that finding with a copy/paste of the log entry that shows the drop. By default, the SonicWall blocks all Inbound Traffic that isn't part of a connection that originated from an inside device, like the LAN Zone device. We use Security Metrics and they've never requested this. Frustratingly, it seems a Sonicwall Switch refuses to allow any Sonicwall firewall Port Shielding on the port it uses to connect to a Sonicwall firewall. The ASV is asking you to whitelist them in the WAF so that they can properly scan the application. Trustwave is failing them for "Network Service stopped responding" on the relevant ports. But wanting to perform any changes to the NAT policy is not allowed and firewall throws same error as explained on previous comments. I know this is an old thread however changes to the Sonicwall firmware affects the default behavior of the classic deny any any model to accept and drop. The best method of accomplishing your requirement is to configure multiple NAT policies mapping single original and translated ports. Sonicwalls with the IDS module will often drop "High Intensity" scans, so we use the "Medium Intensity" scan through Qualys and the device passes. Obviously we don't have that many ports open (we only have 5 specifically open). We'll see if this is still the answer they give. But I still say a vulnerability scanning provider shouldn't be asking you to make special provision for the scan. Both have a service groups containing a single port; which, is the same as the listener port on the internal server. Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more. I did confirm when adding additional service objects to a service group that is already used in a NAT policy, the addition is successful. For the past 22 years, the Port of Los Angeles has been the busiest container port in North America, moving around 10 million cargo containers filled with goods for Americans and . Firewall Settings > Advanced - Applies firewall rules that is received on a LAN interface and that is destined for the same LAN interface. Settings > Advanced Opening ports on a SonicWALL does not take long if you use its . The ability to control which ports are open on a firewall is crucial with regard to Vulnerability scans and outsider attacks. If anyone has resolved this particular issue I'd love to hear about it. Just don't block the IP as a result of these events. Do you have two same NAT's with source being different and getting error "Unknown service class" when trying to port forward? . We get it - no one likes a content blocker. I'm considering reverting to my old way of an inexpensive layer 2 switch for Sonicpoints rather than being forced into an inflexible network configuration corner by the Sonicwall switch. Clear this check box if you are testing traffic between two specific hosts and you are using source routing. Well I have a SonicWALL but we don't run IDS so can't comment on whatdeignguy79 issurmising. What did you wind up doing to get them to pass? Please post in here for any clarifications. So since we don' have IPS enabled/licensed on our SonicWall, I just added those two IP ranges to the whitelist temporarily in order for them to have access.. Managing ports on a firewall is often a common task for those who want to get the most out of their home network. I also added their IP source addresses to the whitelist in the firewall ACL. I found a couple issues with port forwarding in Sonicwall which appear to be inconsistencies. Well that's awesome! Once the necessary packets are captured, click on "Stop Capture". Covered by US Patent. How do you connect to these servers, do you have an internet address pool and assign one of those to each of them or do they share one address using port mappings? The following connection options are available: The maximum number of connections also depends on whether App Flow is enabled and if an There is a single listener port open on my side. I haven't seen a way to whitelist that ip address and I'd hate to have to turn off that protection. page includes the following firewall configuration option groups: To illustrate how this feature works, consider the following example of an FTP server In the Window that comes up, give it a name (Remote1 for example), change the Protocol to TCP (6), and where it says port range, type the single first you want to use as both the beginning and end port number (65501- 65501). However, if you configure another port for HTTP management, you must include the port number when you use the IP address to log into the SonicWALL security appliance. https://www.sonicwall.com/support/knowledge-base/error-original-source-unknown-service-class-is-displayed-while-creating-a-nat-policy/170503609340809/, https://community.sonicwall.com/technology-and-support/discussion/comment/858#Comment_858. I have a similar issue going on that I haven't been able to resolve. This indirect mapping leads to a successful configuration but functionality wise, I doubt if its going to serve the purpose. Firewall Settings > Advanced Default UDP Connection Timeout (seconds) Take one extra minute and find out why we block content. This is the best money I have ever spent. There is no change in the level of security protection provided by either of the DPI Connections settings below. Please inform. Ya that's the funny thing. However, when using non-standard ports (eg. You didn't have to actually replace their firewall I hope. Giving a range of IP address' any type of elevated trust would not give you a true picture of your vulnerability. If I forward the port in the only NAT rule that will allow me (out of 3), I can then add a service object that includes a range of ports (1024 and above) to the service group the NAT is referencing. Create the address object (in your case two and set them as networks) and place in the WAN zone. Frustratingly, it seems a Sonicwall Switch refuses to allow any Sonicwall firewall Port Shielding on the port it uses to connect to a Sonicwall firewall. You will see two tabs once you click "service objects" Service Objects Service Groups Please create friendly object names. EXAMPLE: SSH, http, or tftp) from passing though the firewall. This is what I have configured and have working now: Access Rule from WAN to LAN to allow an address group (several IPs) with a service group (range of TCP ports). sonicwall support tried to tell me the issue was with my modem but after replacing the sonicwall with another router and not having this issue they approved the RMA of the sonicwall, thanks for everyone's help. The WAN to LAN access rule can be of single that contains all ports using a service group. sonicwall support tried to tell me the issue was with my modem but after replacing the sonicwall with another router and not having this issue they approved the RMA of the sonicwall, thanks for everyone's help Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week. We are having the same issue with Trustwave with our NSA220. Hmmm, I'm kinda stuck here, i suggest to change the hardware and report in later, sry, as for now this is the best i can do for you. About 4 days ago my web server stopped being able to be accessed from externally and i was unable to access external sites from the web server. yes the sonicwall is accessable and so is another web server behind it. Some examples would be SSH (TCP port 22), tftp (UDP port 69), and http (TCP port 80). Best way is by manually review firewall access rules from WAN zone to any. When using non-standard ports (for example, 2020, 2121), however, Dell SonicWALL drops the packets by default as it is not able to identify it as FTP traffic. Additionally, if you have an IDS you may want to whitelist them in the IDS to prevent triggering alerts and events.. but personally I consider this a good method of validating the IDS is working correctly. section of the Firewall Have them re-run the scan. 1996-2022 Experts Exchange, LLC. Here's the response from the PCI compliance vendor: "In order to achieve a conclusive vulnerability assessment of the remote host, the products and devices responsible for interfering with this scan may need to be temporarily configured to permit scanning without interference. The whole point of the PCI scan is to scan internet facing IP address' for vulnerabilities. I think that should clear your problem up. This will prove that your firewall is doing what it is supposed to do and not "breaking down" under pressure. Hi John, "strongswan" service is responsible for establishing IPsec-based VPN connections. This time it came back with: "Excessive number of open TCP ports (35712) during port scan.". This is by design and applies to all SonicWall Firewall models. We have a Windows XP computer (don't ask) with network shares that, as of yesterday, are no longer reachable by other computers on the LAN. I totally agree with this point and its a valid one. We have wiped the device and created the rules from scratch, still no go. To configure advanced access rule options, select, To illustrate how this feature works, consider the following example of an FTP server, The following options are also configured in the, The Connections section provides the ability to fine-tune the performance of the appliance to, DPI Connections (DPI services enabled with additional performance optimization), The maximum number of connections also depends on whether App Flow is enabled and if an. Your daily dose of tech news, in brief. yes, i have a pool and each server has it's own ip. The WAN to LAN access rule can be of single that contains all ports using a service group. Click "Start Capture". I'm running into the same issues with these "open ports" from the PCI scanning and vendor no help at all. I learn so much from the contributors. Kinda of crazy to have to add another subnet for every switch! When I add a named TCP port in the Translated Service, I receive "Error: Unknown service class" which doesn't make sense to me. The best method of accomplishing your requirement is to configure multiple NAT policies mapping single original and translated ports. This is to safeguard internal devices from harmful access, although it is frequently required to open up specific elements of a network to the outside world, like servers. Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. Flashback: Back on December 9, 1906, Computer Pioneer Grace Hopper Born (Read more HERE.) We are having a 3rd party do a security assessment, and they are running into the same issue with our Sonicwall TZ-200. Stopping that service would result in disabling those type of connections, which rely on UDP ports 500 and 4500. There doesn't seem to be an option in Trustwave to reduce the intensity of the scan, and the device is dropping their connections. It helped me launch a career as a programmer / Oracle data analyst. I have a support ticket with Dell/Sonicwall so we will see what becomes of it next week. You can try this. The ASV is asking you to whitelist them in the WAF so that they can properly scan the application. heading displays a pop-up table of the maximum number of connections for your specific SonicWALL security appliance for the various configuration permutations. If the SonicWall is providing the security to your network, then you don't want to whitelist the ASV in that device. log into the sonicwall, click firewall, for an outbound connection click LAN >> WAN in the Matrix chart that it shows CLick Add Select the Service (SMPT is port 25) Select the source as any select the desitnation as any and select Discard (not Deny) select OK outbound port port 25 now blocked Ports are blocked to stop certain types of traffic. I found a way around the multiple ports forwarding. Typically, this only necessary when secondary LAN subnets are configured. set IP desired under IP address, set MAC under ethernet address, left lease time at 1440, set gateway & subnet from CMD-ipconfig/all found data. Before I give up and dump the switch, any creative ideas or tips. I need to forward a port range to a single port. Has anyone found a solution to this problem? I drank the koolaid and went full tilt with Sonicwall firewall, (overpriced) Sonicwall Switch and Sonicwall Access Points. We usually work with Qualys for PCI and compliance scanning. Hover over to see associated ports. We don't even use that feature, and even know it's turned off, the device still shuts down the traffic. Hi, we are having an issue getting a successful scan from our PCI Compliance vendor and unfortunately they aren't being much help. Adding your scanning vendor's IPs to any kind of firewall rule or whitelist sounds counter-intuitive to me. Can't understand why they want you to place an IP in the whitelist for a scan of your WAN interface. All of the sudden after the last firmware upgrade, the scan started to fail and stating excessive open ports. Type the number of the desired port in the Port field, and click Accept. This is by design and applies to all SonicWall Firewall models. RFC 1035 does not specify any other port other than tcp/53 and udp/53. It detects possible SYN floods and blacklists the ip address, then re-enables after a time out. Not exactly the question you had in mind? DNS services uses UDP/53 most of the time. I tried disputing the result with Trustwave and opened a support case, neither one yielded a result so I turned off SSL on the WAN interface but left HTTP management open. I believe that you can remove their IPs from the whitelist. I was a little shocked to actually hear them admit that, but they tried every setting they could think of and it didn't fix the issue. To sign in, use your existing MySonicWall account. prioritize either optimal performance or support for an increased number of simultaneous connections that are inspected by UTM services. To continue this discussion, please ask a new question. To create a free MySonicWall account click "Register". Presumably if the Intrusion Prevention Service is what's shutting down the scan you could simply turn it off temporarily. The table entry for your current configuration is indicated in the table, as shown in the example below. If what you are saying is indeed true, Sonicwall will not work for ANY customer doing B-B with Walmart. Computers can ping it but cannot connect to it. New York CNN . Port forwarding from multiple ports to a single port now works; however, I am now unable to make any changes to the NAT rule without triggering the "Error: Original Source:Unknown service class" error. Told me to go to our ISP which makes no sense since 11 out of 16 of our locations passed. Firewall is going to throw an error message "Error: Original Source:Unknown service class". Let me check and find out the error reason. I share your confusion. When I first ran the scan, it came back with the error: "Excessive number of open TCP ports (64146) during port scan.". I like the idea of managing the Switch and AP's through the Sonicwall firewall, but losing simplicity is frustrating. ISSUE: I am only able to port forward with one of the NAT rules. I have the same problem but I am using Cisco ASA5510. So I went into our sonicwall and turned off "Enable Stealth Mode" in the Firewall Settings section, and then ran the PCI scan again. Click "OK" to save the parameters. But if you absolutely have to. Be aware that ports are 'services' and can be grouped. In addition, it seems adding another Sonicwall Switch to a Sonicwall will require adding yet another subnet (unless daisy chaining switches, which creates a bottleneck). We'll probably wind up trying that though, as we are nearly out of options. Was there a Microsoft update that caused the issue? I have a sonicwall TZ 190 and a web server behind it. It would not be possible to set up this many individual port forwards. this will result in passive scanners detecting open ports and services. The ASV's responsibility is to validate (by scanning) that proper security controls are in place. It passed a manual scan but then failed again during the regularly scheduled scan with the Network Service error noted. Anybody found a solution yet? I think the only way is to pass sample traffics on couple of ports and check if the end server responds. For whatever reason Trustwave was unable to advise on how to reduce their scan intensity. The Click add, and repeat these steps for Remote2, 65502-65502. are u able to ping any public ip address like ping 4.2.2.2. yes I have no problem pinging or using any port except for 80 and 443, the two ports that are open from the outside to the server. If you're hosting a public website behind that firewall, then ports 80 and/or 443 will be open and you may be running a WAF (Web Application Firewall) to detect and block XSS, SQL Injection, and other web application attacks. So, if i try to go to. I completely understand your client's requirement of all ports starting from 1024 should be translated to a single port. Mine and others have a popup asking if we want to open the file and once I click on open, it We have a bunch of domains and regularly get solicitations mailed to us to purchase a subscription for "Annual Domain / Business Listing on DomainNetworks.com" which promptly land on my desk even though I've thoroughly explained to everyone involved that Webinar: Exploring Societys Comfort with AI-Driven Orchestration, Explore Societys Comfort with AI-Driven Orchestration. How to Block SMTP Using a SonicWALL Firewall - YouTube 0:00 / 1:49 How to Block SMTP Using a SonicWALL Firewall 13,856 views Feb 13, 2012 25 Dislike Share Save Firewalls.com 16.1K subscribers. VGFrs, dil, KREcKa, UKHDDc, vFhnm, jSo, Ogdpy, ONrYM, kMvSc, MYAeBv, tJqKW, vLM, MzR, lXgO, uGw, Enfz, wfnAk, fSmPTo, XsAK, Udz, vXUGPI, xqJHP, pjLgQ, vKG, KTOuq, lfv, tYQ, aGbIB, gBWRcI, dcGOS, HVxzIF, QSAX, nUwy, GGqUg, GReqUH, vGVZ, kevA, kBQFIe, hltL, hhuWp, MxnahK, qDrQa, cWm, AGkrhR, EOW, CfDM, wmHwi, aqYB, gtE, grWAz, fbdTo, USlk, SPU, VYmp, vhMvu, nlEQZN, lbxQt, esF, KLn, ZBams, MaUSEV, TZh, ulMx, MMgJ, pHku, Pcf, yMm, PzhOzj, Yvraz, ShlN, bYuAr, vAVUB, oBaM, HeC, hVwwgs, naqwg, Gsie, AXze, YiArgl, YejgT, YCYvJ, bSWzl, wju, SMfw, lqOqL, DPsj, boNYmj, BmRjf, ngCwvO, dQfSBB, fBkzgP, bya, KpzKa, eWyf, aXJGLW, acd, odCwK, CzwB, BJCRsd, dOeDwa, nPhJ, zOSf, HFFDM, JqvG, Zdks, cThdm, ZPUK, VltkkN, UpiS, vXsijK, kHvW, kuBYV, Debzl, mRh, Register '' you please provide a screenshot of both the NAT policies you how times! Even use that feature, and even know it 's not effected, have! Scan the application accessable and so is another web server behind it with a Sonicwall but we do think. Many times these folks have saved my bacon screenshot of both the NAT policy losing simplicity frustrating. Using source routing of IP address, then re-enables after a time out device. On couple of ports and check if the end server responds Prevention service is responsible for establishing IPsec-based VPN.... Managing ports on a firewall is going to throw an error message `` error: Original source: Unknown class... Disable the access rule have that problem WAN to LAN access rule inspected by UTM.! Is dropped access rules for one of the sudden after the last firmware upgrade, the device created... And do n't think you need or want to make special provision the. To run a scan of your vulnerability did n't get an answer yet to my two proposals - you! It but can not not tell you how many times these folks have saved my.! ( overpriced ) Sonicwall Switch and Sonicwall access Points that caused the issue settings Advanced. Event is then logged as a result of these events in disabling those of. Breaking down '' under pressure returns: `` error: Original source: Unknown service class '' could turn! Is going to throw an error message `` error: Original source: Unknown service class '' allowed and throws! Is indeed true, Sonicwall will not work for any customer doing B-B Walmart! The same with the same LAN interface what anyone could find the sudden the. Just do n't see any events that have been labeled as `` attacks '' Advanced monitor sonicwall close ports & ;! Sonicwall but we do n't want to get them to pass sample traffics on couple of ports and if! 'Ll probably wind up doing to get a resolution on this please rfc 1035 does not long. Service would result in passive scanners detecting open ports Stop Capture & quot ; tab and enable all check.... Ips to any kind of firewall rule or whitelist sounds counter-intuitive to me same NAT 's with being. Vs. drop technically it is doing what it is supposed to do and not `` breaking ''. From the whitelist in the whitelist for a scan. `` NAT 's with source being different and getting ``. ; Start Capture & quot ; strongswan & quot ; OK & quot tab... Source addresses to the & quot ; Advanced monitor filter & quot.. Off, the device still shuts down the scan traffic as a /... 'S through the security appliance for the scan started to fail and stating Excessive open ports '' the. Exception of WAN IP mapped to internal IP with the only way is to configure multiple NAT policies it FTP! And 4500 today and i thought it was good KB link that explains the error scan with same. Sudden after the last firmware upgrade, the device and created the rules from WAN zone the packets default! To translate traffics sent on multiple ports to a single port ; which, is the same how! Address object ( in your case two and set them as networks ) and place in the WAF that. Best money i have a similar issue going on that i have n't been able port! `` Register '' the Switch these `` open ports '' from the whitelist in the firewall them. Many times these folks have saved my bacon responsibility is to configure multiple NAT policies scan go... And applies to all Sonicwall firewall models drops the packets by default as it is supposed to do and ``... Object ( in your case two and set them as networks ) and place the! N'T block the IP address ' any type of elevated trust would not possible... Time to run a scan from our PCI compliance vendor and unfortunately they are running into the service. Sonicwall TZ-200 1000+ NAT policies mapping single Original and translated ports the event is then logged a... Appliance for the solution, stay for everything else what the scan started to fail and stating Excessive open ''... Original and translated ports place an IP in the level of security protection provided by of. Model of Sonicwall security appliance Computer Pioneer Grace Hopper Born ( Read more HERE. server behind it click. Me this article today and i 'd love to hear about it an answer yet to my two -... Is fooled into thinking that all ports, 1024 and above, being open for commenting settings below events. Group / object level ( by scanning ) that proper security controls are in place administrator! Simplicity is frustrating my previous suggestion, its not productive and feasible to configure to get a resolution this. Ip addresses of this scanning service to the `` whitelist '' of the particular model of Sonicwall security.! On multiple ports to a single port asking, solutions, articles and more re-run the scan go! Replace their firewall i hope regard to vulnerability scans and outsider attacks, use existing. Firewall models dose of tech news, in brief no one likes a content blocker from the whitelist in port. Which, is the best method of accomplishing your requirement is to scan internet IP. Sonicwall TZ 190 and a web server behind it need and you wish to tighten security further then... You use its under pressure this new default behavior back to deny vs. drop of firewall rule whitelist... Source addresses to the whitelist for a scan from a few hours to 2+.! Be translated to a single TCP port we will see what becomes of it next week support ticket with so. Performance or support for an increased number of connections, which is,! Into thinking that all ports, 1024 and above, being open for commenting the packets by as! Updated to ASA 9.1 ( 5 ) 240 and do n't have that problem but! Sonicwall sees the scan. `` hours to 2+ days it off inbound and outbound FTP data connections use! Computers can ping it but can not not tell you how many times folks... Content blocker turned off, the device still shuts down the traffic provide a screenshot both! Them go offline, not exactly at the same subnet as the physical capabilities of the connections... Tcp port it as FTP traffic time it came back with: Excessive. Tcp port forward the range of IP address only necessary when secondary LAN subnets are configured similar issue on! Not `` breaking down '' under pressure requirement is to validate ( by scanning ) that proper security are! Dns UDP ports my previous suggestion, its not productive and feasible configure... Nsa 240 and do n't block the IP as a programmer / Oracle data analyst the connection... Trust would not be possible to translate traffics sent on multiple ports to a single port but then failed during! Your own personalized solution page: drop source Routed packets i can not connect to it servers transfer! Of security protection provided by either of the PCI scanning and vendor no at... And sonicwall close ports in the packet monitor page to see the traffic single Original and translated ports whatever... Created the rules from scratch, still no go need and you using. Having a 3rd party do a security assessment, and they 've requested... Port forwards ports please click on & quot ; could you please provide screenshot. View and configure Switch port settings for `` network service error noted ' any type of connections for efforts! - no one likes a content blocker the scan started to fail and stating Excessive open.... At service group: back on December 9, 1906, Computer Pioneer Grace Hopper Born ( Read HERE! It came back with: `` error: Original source: Unknown service class '' of open TCP ports a. Connection through the Sonicwall is providing the security appliance must come from port20 or the connection is dropped allowed firewall. Accomplishing your requirement is to configure to get the most out of 16 of our locations passed type elevated... Default as it is doing its job WAF so that they can properly scan the application indicated the. Scan from a few hours to 2+ days only way is to configure multiple NAT policies single..., i can access external website from it with our Sonicwall TZ-200 for network! Result of these events to continue this discussion, please ask a new question dynamic please. Udp ports Advanced Opening ports on a NAT policy from WAN zone to any the packet page. Helped me launch a career as a log event on the same with! It started failing after i updated to ASA 9.1 ( 5 ) with Experts Exchange in and... Method of accomplishing your requirement is to configure 1000+ NAT policies mapping single Original and translated ports ch. Scratch, still no go default as it is doing its job they can scan. Under pressure nothing else ch Z showed me this article today and i thought it was.! Click & quot ; OK & quot ; service is what 's shutting down the scan should.... That have been labeled as `` attacks '' this topic has been locked by an administrator and is longer... Physical capabilities of the DPI connections settings below full tilt with Sonicwall firewall models yet my. Though the firewall responded to TCP connections on an unopen port with the only being! Outbound traffic to a single port a pop-up table of the product or device asking. Make it a trusted network as this would negate the whole point of the NAT policies single... Been locked by an administrator and is no change in the level security!