Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Windows 7 firewall blocking ARCP-480 on host  (Read 60813 times)
WD8OQX
Member

Posts: 90




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2015, 09:34:52 PM »

After a laps time to rest & give things some more thought, I actually DID manage to get it going (LAN), albeit, I still have to turn off the host firewall. I think my host OS is a bit messed up & when I get in the mood, I'll try to "repair install" it. - I reversed the HOST & CLIENT and it worked OK.

Playing with another approach. Not sure which one I'll settle on, or if I'll actually get serious about remote, but for now, it's something to play with.

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 8875




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2015, 09:48:06 AM »

I think my host OS is a bit messed up & when I get in the mood, I'll try to "repair install" it.

Why is it that many think it is normal/okay to reinstall/repair rather than take time to figure out the problem? All my systems here have not been reloaded/repaired since day one except a beta OS build that bricked a tablet once.
Logged

--------------------------------------
You can embrace new technology and change with it or cling tightly to XP/7 and fall further behind everyday....
WD8OQX
Member

Posts: 90




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2015, 12:34:37 PM »

Quote
W8JX
Why is it that many think it is normal/okay to reinstall/repair rather than take time to figure out the problem? All my systems here have not been reloaded/repaired since day one except a beta OS build that bricked a tablet once.

Because it is the quickest / easiest way to fix missing or corrupt files in M$.
(the main troubleshooting, I already did, - & health issues get in the way of me wanting to spend time on it much)

Not to be snotty, but;
Obviously, you never worked IT, or any other position that required the computer be fixed "as of yesterday".
Also, from the wording of your comment, I have to wonder if you really know what I'm actually referring to.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 02:29:14 PM by WD8OQX » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 8875




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2015, 07:24:21 AM »

Quote
W8JX
Why is it that many think it is normal/okay to reinstall/repair rather than take time to figure out the problem? All my systems here have not been reloaded/repaired since day one except a beta OS build that bricked a tablet once.

Because it is the quickest / easiest way to fix missing or corrupt files in M$.
(the main troubleshooting, I already did, - & health issues get in the way of me wanting to spend time on it much)

Not to be snotty, but;
Obviously, you never worked IT, or any other position that required the computer be fixed "as of yesterday".
Also, from the wording of your comment, I have to wonder if you really know what I'm actually referring to.

Not true at all. When you work IT as I did "IF" you really know what you are doing you do not need to reload to fix most problems. Reloads and fixes from backups are for wanabee IT's that really are not that skilled. You need to find cause of problem to prevent its reoccurrence and restores/reloads dos not address this at all but it does lead to Job Security and requires less skill to do. 
Logged

--------------------------------------
You can embrace new technology and change with it or cling tightly to XP/7 and fall further behind everyday....
WD4ELG
Member

Posts: 944




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2015, 06:25:18 PM »

W8JX, Sir, may I interject here?  I have seen MANY companies who have IT support staff that choose to reimage a machine after a period of time X has passed without resolution to the issue.  Several banks with trading floors come to mind (not ALL, just some that I have seen).

I am not advocating that approach (I would hate it...as an engineer by training and experience before my work in IT, that approach goes against every fiber in my aging body), but I have seen it where there is a high sense of urgency.

To your point, the downsides are obviously the inability to detect repeated root causes and resolve them (which is why those customers need some operations folks to look at helpdesk tickets for resolution). And I have seen customers miss opportunities to detect and resolve those issues sooner.
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2015, 04:35:11 AM »

I am curious as to why this didn't work on the LAN. Did the OP configure the firewall  (FW) rules to allow Inbound traffic on the FW for the specified UDP/TCP ports on the host PC? Looking at the earlier suggestions, they are vague regarding inbound vs outbound rules. It would also seem that specific FW rules are needed on the host and client PCs.

It wasn't specified but it is important to know if the PC's that are used on the LAN are assigned static IP addresses. This affects how (well) you write the firewall rules. It could also be the cause of problems such as "it worked before but it is not working now".

You can configure the FW to log rejected packets so you can see what is going on with the rules. This is often quite instructive to fixing FW problems.  What I frequently see is that the inbound and outbound ports are not as advertised in the manual. For instance, different ports for inbound/outbound traffic or they vary over a range of ports.

Another nice program for troubleshooting is Wireshark. It is free and offers a very nice filterable view of what is happening on any network port. It is available for Windows and Linux.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 08:43:47 AM by W9IQ » Logged
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 458




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2015, 06:33:03 AM »

Good advice. And I could not agree more about Wireshark, it is an excellent tool.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 8875




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2015, 08:22:39 AM »

W8JX, Sir, may I interject here?  I have seen MANY companies who have IT support staff that choose to reimage a machine after a period of time X has passed without resolution to the issue.  Several banks with trading floors come to mind (not ALL, just some that I have seen).

I am not advocating that approach (I would hate it...as an engineer by training and experience before my work in IT, that approach goes against every fiber in my aging body), but I have seen it where there is a high sense of urgency.

To your point, the downsides are obviously the inability to detect repeated root causes and resolve them (which is why those customers need some operations folks to look at helpdesk tickets for resolution). And I have seen customers miss opportunities to detect and resolve those issues sooner.

Many re-image simply because they know no better and decisions to do it at company level typically know little about how and why things works.
Logged

--------------------------------------
You can embrace new technology and change with it or cling tightly to XP/7 and fall further behind everyday....
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2015, 09:25:37 AM »

I should also add that like most FWs, the Windows FW is a stateful model. This means that if a registered application is running on the Windows box and it requests communications with a different box (IP address), the local Windows FW will allow a response to come back from that remote IP address on the specified port through the FW to the original application. However, there is a time limit for how long this is allowed. In a Windows FW, this timeout is dynamic (I could elaborate but that is not the point here).

The timeout of a stateful connection can also explain how an application works for a while and then ceases working. If the application that is on the box in question has not initiated or maintained communications with the remote box for a while and the stateful connection has expired, then no matter that the remote box is using "the right ports", the local FW will no longer allow the communications through. This is the correct FW behavior but to the uninformed, the application seems to have suddenly "stopped working" when it was "working a minute ago".

Also consider that when dealing with two Windows boxes, each with their own stateful FW, there are two independent sets of timeouts occurring. Failure to consider this doubled stateful firewall architecture can lead one down many errant paths and conclusions.

The firewall rules must be correctly structured to allow the communications on the specified port to come through even when the local program has not initiated the communications. This is particularly true in this case since the remote client application (ARCP480 and ARVP-10R) needs to establish contact with the host application (ARHP-10 and ARVP-10H) without applying stateful rules.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2015, 10:20:58 AM »

In addition to FW issues, another issue that can cause problems is that only one application on a given Windows box can be listening on a given TCP port (not the case for UDP multicasting) for a given remote IP address (range). You can check what applications are using what ports by going to the command prompt and typing "netstat -ano" without the quotation marks. This will give you a listing of all applications running and the ports that they are using.

If you see another application using TCP (first column) and :50000 then you may have a conflicting application. Investigate thoroughly.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 06:30:28 AM by W9IQ » Logged
WD4ELG
Member

Posts: 944




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2015, 04:56:20 PM »

W8JX, acknowledged.

WD8OQX - did you try the Yahoo TS480 group?  Might get a larger audience that way.  Just a suggestion.

I would like to help if I can.  Please contact me off-board, we will walk through it together as I have a TS480 working fine on my LAN
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2015, 06:59:47 AM »

I take it the OP, Tim,  WD8OQX is done with this thread since we haven't heard from him?

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!