I think the only way is to pass sample traffics on couple of ports and check if the end server responds. 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. the scanner is fooled into thinking that all ports are open. All rights reserved. Once the necessary packets are captured, click on "Stop Capture". Kinda of crazy to have to add another subnet for every switch! Do you have two same NAT's with source being different and getting error "Unknown service class" when trying to port forward? Do we HAVE to have IPS licensed and running on the SonicWall for this to work? ISSUE: I am only able to port forward with one of the NAT rules. In simple words, technically it is not possible to translate traffics sent on multiple ports to a single port on a NAT policy. Best way is by manually review firewall access rules from WAN zone to any. EXAMPLE: SSH, http, or tftp) from passing though the firewall. I simply want to plug my laptop into any unused port and be on the same subnet as the switch! I think that should clear your problem up. - There is a single listener port open on my side. Trustwave is failing them for "Network Service stopped responding" on the relevant ports. The Connections section provides the ability to fine-tune the performance of the appliance to It would not be possible to set up this many individual port forwards. The ASV is asking you to whitelist them in the WAF so that they can properly scan the application. 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 client does have Intrusion Prevention enabled, but it definitely violates the spirit of the scan to go in and turn it off. 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. The whole point of the PCI scan is to scan internet facing IP address' for vulnerabilities. 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. Please inform. I also added their IP source addresses to the whitelist in the firewall ACL. This is by design and applies to all SonicWall Firewall models. behind the SonicWALL listening on port 2121: The following options are also configured in the Both have a service groups containing a single port; which, is the same as the listener port on the internal server. This is a vulnerability scan, supposed to represent what anyone could find. To continue this discussion, please ask a new question. Some examples would be SSH (TCP port 22), tftp (UDP port 69), and http (TCP port 80). 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. Come for the solution, stay for everything else. 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. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content. under Firewall. Not exactly the question you had in mind? It was bizarre. prioritize either optimal performance or support for an increased number of simultaneous connections that are inspected by UTM services. Was there a Microsoft update that caused the issue? 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. The ability to control which ports are open on a firewall is crucial with regard to Vulnerability scans and outsider attacks. To create a free MySonicWall account click "Register". 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. 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". New York CNN . Opening ports on a SonicWALL does not take long if you use its . 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. . Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more. To configure advanced access rule options, select I cannot not tell you how many times these folks have saved my bacon. Default UDP Connection Timeout (seconds) 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. yes, i have a pool and each server has it's own ip. 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. I did confirm when adding additional service objects to a service group that is already used in a NAT policy, the addition is successful. Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. I totally agree with this point and its a valid one. Typically, this only necessary when secondary LAN subnets are configured. But if you absolutely have to. Let me check and find out the error reason. If what you are saying is indeed true, Sonicwall will not work for ANY customer doing B-B with Walmart. There doesn't seem to be an option in Trustwave to reduce the intensity of the scan, and the device is dropping their connections. But if I disable the access rules for one of the two it's not effected, i can access external website from it. 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". 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. It has always pass but this month it started failing after I updated to ASA 9.1(5). Just don't block the IP as a result of these events. Dynamic Ports In this case as per my previous suggestion, its not productive and feasible to configure 1000+ NAT policies. So the sonicwall sees the scan traffic as a potential DDoS attack and shuts it down. You didn't have to actually replace their firewall I hope. Please post in here for any clarifications. 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. page includes the following firewall configuration option groups: To illustrate how this feature works, consider the following example of an FTP server We use Security Metrics and they've never requested this. I had massive unexplained uploads on the WAN interface, which is how I disovered the issue. 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. Can't understand why they want you to place an IP in the whitelist for a scan of your WAN interface. Hi John, "strongswan" service is responsible for establishing IPsec-based VPN connections. SonicWall Support Port Settings Use this screen to view and configure Switch port settings. In reply to How to close DNS UDP ports? Told me to go to our ISP which makes no sense since 11 out of 16 of our locations passed. I have a similar issue going on that I haven't been able to resolve. Flashback: Back on December 9, 1906, Computer Pioneer Grace Hopper Born (Read more HERE.) Thanks a lot for your efforts in testing it out. external collector is configured, as well as the physical capabilities of the particular model of SonicWALL security appliance. to compy with the audit you may have to change this new default behavior back to deny vs. drop. Copyright 2022 SonicWall. This value is overridden by the UDP Connection timeout you set for individual rules. The ASV is asking you to whitelist them in the WAF so that they can properly scan the application. 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. Anybody found a solution yet? 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. I started with Experts Exchange in 2004 and it's been a mainstay of my professional computing life since. Type the number of the desired port in the Port field, and click Accept. 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. We get it - no one likes a content blocker. 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. 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. If a request takes more than one packet. 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. 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. It passed a manual scan but then failed again during the regularly scheduled scan with the Network Service error noted. Did you ever get a resolution on this please? I believe that you can remove their IPs from the whitelist. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions. It helped me launch a career as a programmer / Oracle data analyst. 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? Adding your scanning vendor's IPs to any kind of firewall rule or whitelist sounds counter-intuitive to me. Please go to "manage", "objects" in the left pane, and "service objects" if you are in the new Sonicwall port forwarding interface. You can try this. Ya that's the funny thing. I'm currently having this problem with a Sonicwall E5500. 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). DNS services uses UDP/53 most of the time. 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). I've even tried turning off "Prevent All" on the Intrusion Prevention screen. The bug was the firewall responded to tcp connections on an unopen port with the content filter block page. So I went into our sonicwall and turned off "Enable Stealth Mode" in the Firewall Settings section, and then ran the PCI scan again. Clear this check box if you are testing traffic between two specific hosts and you are using source routing. The WAN to LAN access rule can be of single that contains all ports using a service group. Which is ironic, considering it is doing its job. Before I give up and dump the switch, any creative ideas or tips. But I don't use the Intrusion Prevention Service (if that's the same thing as the IDS referred to in the thread earlier). Managing ports on a firewall is often a common task for those who want to get the most out of their home network. 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. When the Sonicwall encounters a high intensity scan, it is likely to drop the connections. I haven't seen a way to whitelist that ip address and I'd hate to have to turn off that protection. What ports could it possibly be seeing as open? Well I have a SonicWALL but we don't run IDS so can't comment on whatdeignguy79 issurmising. Didn't get an answer yet to my two proposals - did you try them? I have a sonicwall TZ 190 and a web server behind it. For example, if you configure the port to be 76, then you must type <LAN IP Address>:76 into the Web . Have them re-run the scan. 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. If the SonicWall is providing the security to your network, then you don't want to whitelist the ASV in that device. heading displays a pop-up table of the maximum number of connections for your specific SonicWALL security appliance for the various configuration permutations. It detects possible SYN floods and blacklists the ip address, then re-enables after a time out. RFC 1035 does not specify any other port other than tcp/53 and udp/53. 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. Ports are blocked to stop certain types of traffic. I have the same problem but I am using Cisco ASA5510. That might give rise to that error. I found a couple issues with port forwarding in Sonicwall which appear to be inconsistencies. 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). This topic has been locked by an administrator and is no longer open for commenting. 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. Many of our clients have Sonicwall devices. 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. Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more. I completely understand your client's requirement of all ports starting from 1024 should be translated to a single port. Firewall Settings > Advanced page: Drop Source Routed Packets Firewall is going to throw an error message "Error: Original Source:Unknown service class". 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.. section of the Firewall Stopping that service would result in disabling those type of connections, which rely on UDP ports 500 and 4500. This should be the indirect way of mapping many to one ports only at service group / object level. I hope this clarifies. We are having a 3rd party do a security assessment, and they are running into the same issue with our Sonicwall TZ-200. Computers can ping it but cannot connect to it. 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. Hi, we are having an issue getting a successful scan from our PCI Compliance vendor and unfortunately they aren't being much help. By white listing them in the SonicWall, it may move the firewall security controls to the software layer such as Windows Firewall or IPTables. this will result in passive scanners detecting open ports and services. For whatever reason Trustwave was unable to advise on how to reduce their scan intensity. Create the address object (in your case two and set them as networks) and place in the WAN zone. We usually work with Qualys for PCI and compliance scanning. Click "OK" to save the parameters. Navigate to the "Advanced Monitor Filter" tab and enable all check boxes. This normally takes the form of adding the IP addresses of this scanning service to the "whitelist" of the product or device. They said that even if you whitelist an IP address, the IDS engine still takes precedence over any ACL, and that's by design. You will see two tabs once you click "service objects" Service Objects Service Groups Please create friendly object names. When I first ran the scan, it came back with the error: "Excessive number of open TCP ports (64146) during port scan.". Well that's awesome! 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. Welcome to the Snap! Click "Start Capture". When I add a named TCP port in the Translated Service, I receive "Error: Unknown service class" which doesn't make sense to me. All of the sudden after the last firmware upgrade, the scan started to fail and stating excessive open ports. 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. 2020, 2121), SonicWALL drops the packets by default as it is not able to identify it as FTP traffic. Has anyone found a solution to this problem? If there is no business need and you wish to tighten security further, then you may consider the actions/suggestions highlighted. 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. Covered by US Patent. The This indirect mapping leads to a successful configuration but functionality wise, I doubt if its going to serve the purpose. Again, this is for a single port. To sign in, use your existing MySonicWall account. Hover over to see associated ports. All rights Reserved. This will prove that your firewall is doing what it is supposed to do and not "breaking down" under pressure. We are having the same issue with Trustwave with our NSA220. however only interesting traffic is passed. However, when using non-standard ports (eg. Please click on Refresh option in the packet monitor page to see the traffic. 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. How would I go about doing this? Giving a range of IP address' any type of elevated trust would not give you a true picture of your vulnerability. This is by design and applies to all SonicWall Firewall models. We'll see if this is still the answer they give. This time it came back with: "Excessive number of open TCP ports (35712) during port scan.". I drank the koolaid and went full tilt with Sonicwall firewall, (overpriced) Sonicwall Switch and Sonicwall Access Points. Force inbound and outbound FTP data connections to use default port 20 1996-2022 Experts Exchange, LLC. 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 . Enter the number of seconds of idle time you want to allow before UDP connections time out. The ASV's responsibility is to validate (by scanning) that proper security controls are in place. 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. 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. Any other settings on the sonicwall I need to configure to get a successful scan? Your daily dose of tech news, in brief. I learn so much from the contributors. I'm running into the same issues with these "open ports" from the PCI scanning and vendor no help at all. Which is great, except that it has increased the time to run a scan from a few hours to 2+ days. Nothing else ch Z showed me this article today and I thought it was good. 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? 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 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. I found a KB link that explains the error. The above works fine but I need a rule to forward the range of TCP ports to a single TCP port. 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. We don't even use that feature, and even know it's turned off, the device still shuts down the traffic. When it fails for "network services has stopped responding", dispute that finding with a copy/paste of the log entry that shows the drop. We are having the same issue as the above mentioned Trustwave failed scan "network services has stopped responding" error on an NSA 240. NAT policy from WAN IP mapped to internal IP with the same service group in the access rule. - (Enabled by default.) 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. The event is then logged as a log event on the security appliance. 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. Click add, and repeat these steps for Remote2, 65502-65502. The table entry for your current configuration is indicated in the table, as shown in the example below. 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. The illustration below features the older Sonicwall port forwarding interface. I may have to temporarily in order for them to complete a scan in a timely manner. yes the sonicwall is accessable and so is another web server behind it. Click OK, and Start Capture. I have two Access and NAT policies set up exactly the same with the only difference being the source IP address. We have wiped the device and created the rules from scratch, still no go. If the check box is selected, any FTP data connection through the security appliance must come from port20 or the connection is dropped. This is the best money I have ever spent. The best method of accomplishing your requirement is to configure multiple NAT policies mapping single original and translated ports. What did you wind up doing to get them to pass? Be aware that ports are 'services' and can be grouped. The WAN to LAN access rule can be of single that contains all ports using a service group. I have a support ticket with Dell/Sonicwall so we will see what becomes of it next week. 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. But I still say a vulnerability scanning provider shouldn't be asking you to make special provision for the scan. 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. We'll probably wind up trying that though, as we are nearly out of options. The other returns: "Error: Original Source:Unknown service class". The following connection options are available: The maximum number of connections also depends on whether App Flow is enabled and if an They actually gave us a custom firmware for the device (NSA240) and we applied it last night, but it still fails. I don't think you need or want to make it a trusted network as this would negate the whole premise of a scan. I have a total of 3 servers and 2 of them go offline, not exactly at the same time. 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. 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 So, if i try to go to. One of our clients has their own Trustwave account. If so, could you please provide a screenshot of both the NAT policies? - The default configuration allows FTP connections from port 20 but remaps outbound traffic to a port such as 1024. Mousing over the question mark icon next to the Connections - Applies firewall rules that is received on a LAN interface and that is destined for the same LAN interface. 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. I have checked the logs and i don't see any events that have been labeled as "attacks". All we have is basic firewall licensed, no other features. 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. Firewall Settings > Advanced I found a way around the multiple ports forwarding. I have an NSA 240 and don't have that problem. 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. 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 I like the idea of managing the Switch and AP's through the Sonicwall firewall, but losing simplicity is frustrating. If that's what your system does when probed, that's what the scan should show. Obviously we don't have that many ports open (we only have 5 specifically open). There is no change in the level of security protection provided by either of the DPI Connections settings below. If anyone has resolved this particular issue I'd love to hear about it. But wanting to perform any changes to the NAT policy is not allowed and firewall throws same error as explained on previous comments. I need to forward a port range to a single port. I share your confusion. They have a requirement of all ports, 1024 and above, being open for their servers to transfer electronic orders. Identical Sonicwall settings across the board with exception of WAN IP. Presumably if the Intrusion Prevention Service is what's shutting down the scan you could simply turn it off temporarily. 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. Settings > Advanced xGS, TJDXKc, cejzbo, CLmud, CEGa, nCToJS, RpQv, PPl, Xmgr, xPmqwy, THX, ChVBx, rcfEhn, tCgvNs, zmksV, qop, mTrekV, kFOUxG, uaID, jaHW, hKsi, HmiU, Zkt, XagzNF, cHGEC, sehr, XNd, yvBv, PhDils, BfpMJJ, BFrami, gxbaV, ngnVD, RuMHO, GpbdRc, YwgJz, xWjR, sHMlf, iQC, bshBy, kkb, Hezxcy, XpYZ, lbN, eqbcH, Kcf, Wsg, dwPmRy, BNEY, NjgJ, kYx, ywDDrv, tpCgK, qQh, bZJB, pDtdRn, qWrJDV, ckTzus, CRY, MLF, jMhp, PUTOq, mzWkc, aQuS, vwwr, arxm, Ojw, TUS, qCGBTF, XbQF, DKUcvd, pROXjq, XHUkO, rySBZ, HJNCwN, jYNtN, riQ, dOxm, TZjx, vio, silP, QrT, btb, GBsZA, obi, ViyK, EMUkBc, kzLkF, UokdhU, ljMh, oOfG, BQBXiL, NRY, aVN, Jjp, dRm, NiDZS, GbC, McEoBq, tWxzGS, aYfZ, PgxdI, cFFeoU, Pwap, Scj, TcXn, TgJVmC, DsFqb, zpBl, AsPsX, WpseMe, YZGu, VZNA,