Friz!Box 7530 AW public firewall rule issue.

News and views, and should we control them?

Moderator: embleton

Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:40 pm
Location: Plymouth

Friz!Box 7530 AW public firewall rule issue.

Post by embleton » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:47 am

What I gathered from the Friz!Box 7530 AW that it is poorly documented that the routers firewall blocks public IP addresses in blocks without specialised knowledge from the end user. It was found that only after disconnection the equipment from the LAN port physically public forwarding dropped completely with the abilities are available that work in the user advantage in setting it up. But on setting these rules needs to be done again and again because the rule is not permanent across additional rules additions on the NAT firewall. The complete rule set then needs completely reentering for public forwarding but that is only 5 rules in total for the /29 block.

One of your staff and the right idea in their support that supported when mentioned “idle” from your team during the switch over to a public block of IP addresses. It is with great pleasure I offer great thoughts and thanks to that individual. Great to know a company that offers great support.

I did send an email to the manufacturer concerning the issue that I pointed accurately in my explaining but said organisation have not replied to my inquiry in a swift manner. So, I moved on to have identified a clear workaround for the issue when multihoming a server on 2 IP block of addresses one public and another private. This is done for maintenance reason with live servers and has easy access internally on the LAN privately when working public/private. Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attacks do not apply then because of physicality with no access to the cabling. Even though encryption is used internally with SSH, SSL, TLS and VPN additionally; and even though a backdoor is a present via root.

Post Reply