This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Ports 139 and 445 blocked by UTM

Hi,

I use an UTM9.510-5 in VM and face following problem: VPNs (OpenVPN) are running on another server on the same LAN, UTM redirecting all internal traffic for the VPNs subnet to this server. UTM is default GW for the LAN. If I try to connect to a Windows machine behind a VPN network I get a timeout.

Now I modify my routes on LAN devices giving them the VPNs server as GW for those networks: everything works perfect !

I checked with other services like ssh, http(s), aso, to devices connected on same VPNs network, all of them are perfectly usable if UTM is the GW. So only(?) those 2 ports are blocked by the UTM.

If someone could give me a hint or explanation on what Is wrong.

Regards

Daniel

This thread was automatically locked due to age.

0 Argo over 5 years ago

Hi Daniel Huhardeaux,

what routing have you put in place?

XG & UTM Architect (Systems: XG v18 & UTM 9.7 - Virtual, HW & SW)
Curious enough to take it apart, skilled enough to put it back together, Clever enough to hide the extra parts when I'm Done!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Daniel Huhardeaux over 5 years ago in reply to Argo

Hi Argo,

I have a policy route who forward all traffic to networks behind VPNs using gateway route:

source interface=internal

services=all

destination network=network definition containing all networks address behind VPNs

gateway=IP of VPN server in same LAN

Please remember that this setup is working for all ports to all networks behind VPNs except those 2 ports.

Thanks for your support

Daniel
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 apijnappels over 5 years ago in reply to Daniel Huhardeaux

Do you also have an explicit allow rule for this traffic in the firewall? Just the route is not enough traffic must also be explicitly allowed.

Managing several Sophos firewalls both at work and at some home locations, dedicated to continuously improve IT-security and feeling well helping others with their IT-security challenges.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Daniel Huhardeaux over 5 years ago in reply to Daniel Huhardeaux

OK, I got it: I had a FW rule who blocked those 2 ports, rule I added for test purpose and forgot to disable.

Sorry for the noise, many thanks for your help.

Daniel
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 BAlfson over 5 years ago in reply to Daniel Huhardeaux

Buschur Daniel !

It always pays to start with #1 in Rulz. ;-)

Cheers - Bob

Sophos UTM Community Moderator
Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
Gold Solution Partner since 2005

MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel