Cant communicate
-
@obsolesce said in Cant communicate:
Didn't read al 65 posts above, so may have been mentioned or I may have missed something....
But is 802.1x being used?
802.1x ? What is that and why would it be used?
IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC). It is part of the IEEE 802.1 group of networking protocols. It provides an authentication mechanism to devices wishing to attach to a LAN or WLAN. This is what i get when i google 802.1x
Is this what youre talking about? -
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@obsolesce said in Cant communicate:
Didn't read al 65 posts above, so may have been mentioned or I may have missed something....
But is 802.1x being used?
802.1x ? What is that and why would it be used?
IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC). It is part of the IEEE 802.1 group of networking protocols. It provides an authentication mechanism to devices wishing to attach to a LAN or WLAN. This is what i get when i google 802.1x
Is this what youre talking about?Yes
-
@obsolesce said in Cant communicate:
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@obsolesce said in Cant communicate:
Didn't read al 65 posts above, so may have been mentioned or I may have missed something....
But is 802.1x being used?
802.1x ? What is that and why would it be used?
IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC). It is part of the IEEE 802.1 group of networking protocols. It provides an authentication mechanism to devices wishing to attach to a LAN or WLAN. This is what i get when i google 802.1x
Is this what youre talking about?Yes
This is the first time im ever hearing of this so im sure the answer to that is no
-
I'm facing a parallel issue where a workgroup share is inaccessible, so I've been doing a lot of testing. One of things I've noticed in my tests is that when the Windows Firewall is off then port 445 closes automatically. Have you tried it with the firewalls on, but with SMB-In configured properly in the firewall settings?
-
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
I'm facing a parallel issue where a workgroup share is inaccessible, so I've been doing a lot of testing. One of things I've noticed in my tests is that when the Windows Firewall is off then port 445 closes automatically. Have you tried it with the firewalls on, but with SMB-In configured properly in the firewall settings?
I have not..
-
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
-
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
-
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
-
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
-
@pete-s said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
I would use Nmap on my system, but for troubleshooting a client machine I'd rather use something lighter and faster. YMMV
-
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@pete-s said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
I would use Nmap on my system, but for troubleshooting a client machine I'd rather use something lighter and faster. YMMV
Yes, but installing the complete openssh server on windows isn't light weight.
For telnet and ssh client it's better to just run putty.exe in that case.
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.html -
@pete-s said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@pete-s said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
You can test the port using telnet or ssh (assuming you have either installed on a client). It will at least tell you if you can reach the port.
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
I would use Nmap on my system, but for troubleshooting a client machine I'd rather use something lighter and faster. YMMV
Yes, but installing the complete openssh server on windows isn't light weight.
For telnet and ssh client it's better to just run putty.exe in that case.
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.htmlPutty used to have less than helpful error messages. It looks like that has changed since the last time I used it. Either way, I'm done arguing with you.
-
If the terminals are Windows XP, then telnet is installed by default. In Windows 7, it can be installed, or you can get Putty Portable or something like that.
-
@dafyre said in Cant communicate:
If the terminals are Windows XP, then telnet is installed by default. In Windows 7, it can be installed, or you can get Putty Portable or something like that.
One terminal is Windows XP
-
@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:
@dafyre said in Cant communicate:
If the terminals are Windows XP, then telnet is installed by default. In Windows 7, it can be installed, or you can get Putty Portable or something like that.
One terminal is Windows XP
Try telnetting from that terminal...
Open command prompt and
telnet 192.168.128.xxx 445
If it can't connect, it will tell you right away.
-
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
I would use Nmap on my system, but for troubleshooting a client machine I'd rather use something lighter and faster. YMMV
Yes, but installing the complete openssh server on windows isn't light weight.
For telnet and ssh client it's better to just run putty.exe in that case.
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.htmlPutty used to have less than helpful error messages. It looks like that has changed since the last time I used it. Either way, I'm done arguing with you.
Sorry, didn't mean to start an argument for the sake of arguments. You brought up a good point which is to test with telnet which I appreciate. :thumbs_up:
-
@pete-s said in Cant communicate:
@kelly said in Cant communicate:
I dont believe i have either installed on the client side
Better to use a port scanner, for instance nmap for windows. https://nmap.org/download.html
I would use Nmap on my system, but for troubleshooting a client machine I'd rather use something lighter and faster. YMMV
Yes, but installing the complete openssh server on windows isn't light weight.
For telnet and ssh client it's better to just run putty.exe in that case.
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.htmlPutty used to have less than helpful error messages. It looks like that has changed since the last time I used it. Either way, I'm done arguing with you.
Sorry, didn't mean to start an argument for the sake of arguments. You brought up a good point which is to test with telnet which I appreciate. :thumbs_up:
That makes sense. It has been a rough week, so sorry if I read too much into your comments.
-
I scanned this thread quickly.
Same workgroup?
Joined domain?
Same activated account in backoffice? Same level of security?
Did something switch to the Public Network in Network & Sharing Center?
I believe I saw earlier about the firewall needing to be enabled for 445 to work. That's true AFAIR. -
@scotth said in Cant communicate:
I scanned this thread quickly.
Same workgroup?yes
Joined domain?
yes
Same activated account in backoffice? Same level of security?
same account,
Did something switch to the Public Network in Network & Sharing Center?
These settings did not get changed
I believe I saw earlier about the firewall needing to be enabled for 445 to work. That's true AFAIR.
-
Site is currently unreachable on my end. Hoping the onsite guy can figure it out enough to get it back on line.. we shall see.. .
