Welcome to ISAserver.org

VPN Enigma

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [ISA Server 2004 Firewall] >> VPN >> VPN Enigma

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

VPN Enigma - 8.Jul.2004 1:27:00 AM

pirizarry

Posts: 2
Joined: 8.Jul.2004
From: Alaska
Status: offline

When a client computer is connected via the same ISP as the ISA Server a VPN connection (PPTP)can be established. If the client is connected via another ISP, no VPN connection can be established. The Monitoring Log shows the failed connection as:

Port Prot. Action
1723 PPTP Established Connection
1723 PPTP Denied
1723 PPTP Denied
1723 PPTP Closed Connection

This takes place over a span of 20 seconds, during which time the client computer never reports a connection to the VPN.

Any help in solving this will be greatly apprecciated.

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: VPN Enigma - 8.Jul.2004 6:31:00 AM

tshinder

Posts: 47663
Joined: 10.Jan.2001
From: Texas
Status: offline

Hi pirizarry,

Are you using beta 2? If so, its probably the dreaded authentication bug in beta 2. Its been fixed. Wait for just a few more days and I think you'll be really happy [Smile]

HTH,
Tom

(in reply to pirizarry)

Post #: 2

RE: VPN Enigma - 8.Jul.2004 6:54:00 PM

pirizarry

Posts: 2
Joined: 8.Jul.2004
From: Alaska
Status: offline

Thanks, tshinder.

Just so I understand and have something to take to the boss. The same user logged into the same computer using the same VPN connection but different ISPs for internet connection may be subject to an authentication bug in beta 2. Thanks again for your help.

pirizarry

(in reply to pirizarry)

Post #: 3

RE: VPN Enigma - 9.Jul.2004 3:27:00 AM

tshinder

Posts: 47663
Joined: 10.Jan.2001
From: Texas
Status: offline

Hi pirizarry,

Yes, exactly! It was the most bizzare thing I ever saw. I spent over 40 hours with it trying to figure it out before the confirmed that there was a bug in the RPC filter that whacked authentication attempts on a unpredictable basis.

HTH,
Tom

(in reply to pirizarry)

Post #: 4