WNR2020 - 403 forbidden error on Port Forwarding

[mpuppet]

When I initially setup this router, I had added one custom port forward service that works. However, now when I try to edit the existing setting I get a 403 forbidden page that opens in the main frame of the html interface. The same thing happens when I try to apply a new custom port forwarding service. I can enter the details for a new entry but as soon as I try to save it, I get the 403 page again. I'm running on the latest firmware V1.1.0.44_1.0.1. I have tried different browsers and different devices to no avail. In some browsers, I get the 403. In other browsers, I get a generic error page. In I.E., for instance, I get the error: "The website declined to show this webpage. HTTP 403. Most likely causes: •This website requires you to log in." Obviously, I am already logged in. I have not yet tried a factory reset because I use wifi access list and didn't want to set those up again, but if I have to and a factory reset will help, I'll try that.

[Ontarioeast · Accepted solution]

Same problem here this month.  But I had successfully set up multiple rules last year.  I finally resorted to installing older versions of the firmware and found this problem begins with 1.1.0.44.  So I set up the router as desired by installing 1.1.0.40, defining the required port forwarding rules, then installing the latest 1.1.0.50 - the settings were retained.

[mpuppet]

UPDATE: Performed a factory reset. Added one port forwarding service. Tried to add a second one, 403 forbidden error.  Same error if I try to edit or delete the existing service.  Is this a known issue?

[mpuppet]

UPDATE#2: I found a newer firmware, V1.1.0.50_1.0.1, tried to add a port forward service, got the 403. Did a factory reset, added one port forward successfully, but got the 403 when attempting to add a 2nd. The difference now is that I can successfully delete or edit the existing service, and I can successfully add one back in, but only one.

[Ontarioeast · Accepted solution]

Same problem here this month.  But I had successfully set up multiple rules last year.  I finally resorted to installing older versions of the firmware and found this problem begins with 1.1.0.44.  So I set up the router as desired by installing 1.1.0.40, defining the required port forwarding rules, then installing the latest 1.1.0.50 - the settings were retained.

[mpuppet]

Good idea, thanks.  I will try that later and report back here.

[mpuppet]

Well, that sorta worked. I was able to create a 2nd custom port forwarding service, however, I wanted to use the same internal port 80 and received the error: "The specified port(s) are being used by other configurations. Please check your configurations of Remote Management, Port forwarding, Port Triggering, UPnP Port Mapping table, RIP, and Internet connection type"

I know this is not true, but I tried entering it again with internal port 81 and it worked. I then entered a 3rd port forward service on a 3rd IP with internal port 80 and it worked. Proof that I should be able to have multiple port forwards to different IPs all using the same internal port numbers.  However, when I go back to that 2nd entry and try to change the internal port back to 80, I get that same error message. This IP is not configured anywhere else in my settings except for the Address Reservation. To me, this seems like a database bug, as if 2 entries with the same value cannot be next to each other on the same table. I have an older model Netgear router that does not have this problem.  I want to try going back to factory settings on the older firmware though, and build up the setting from scratch again because by jumping back, I noticed that the IP of the 1st port forwarding service I had entered changed from 192.168.1.88 to 192.168.1.881, without my input, an impossible address, lol. Gotta get away from these bugs!

[antinode]

> [...] I was able to create a 2nd custom port forwarding service,
> however, [...]

> I know this is not true, [...]

   You're ahead of me.  With my weak psychic powers, I can't see any of
your port-forwarding rules (successful or proposed).  Do you have UPnP
and remote management disabled?

> [...] I want to try going back to factory settings on the older
> firmware though, [...]

   Probably wise (or at least worth a try), but without seeing the
details of your rules (which include more than one port number), it's
tough to tell whether to expect much improvement.

[mpuppet]

Yes, uPNP and remote management are disabled.

My port forward rules are pretty simple, the point I was making is that an internal port is just that, internal, per IP. Therefore, it shouldn't matter what internal port I use, as long as I don't try to double up on external ports or IP addresses, which I haven't. Here is an example of what I mean:

1st port forward:

IP is 192.168.1.10, beginning/ending external port is 7000, beginning/ending internal port is 80, no problems.

2nd port forward:

IP is 192.168.1.77, beginning/ending external port is 7777, beginning/ending internal port is 80, but I can't add this without the error unless I change the internal beginning/ending port, which shouldn't be required, because internal ports are specific to the device or IP. If I add this service with internal port 81, it saves. 

3rd port forward:

IP is 192.168.1.70, beginning/ending external port is 9000, beginning/ending internal port is 80, it saves. (Wow that's funny, I thought there was a conflict with the interal port?)

Furthermore, adding a 2nd port forwarding service is only possible by rolling back the firmware 2 versions, even if you start with a factory reset.  I shouldn't have to jump through all these hoops just to make the device work as expected, and technically, I'm still not there.  Considering replacing this router at this point.

[mpuppet]

I did a factory reset on the 1.1.0.40 firmware and started building by settings back up. This time I had no errors with the port forwarding rules all pointing to the same 80 internal port and I was able update the firmware to 1.1.0.50 and keep my settings.

I'm calling this a workaround, not a fix. Looking forward to the next firmware update.

I may end up replacing this router anyway for one that has better performance.

Thanks to Ontarioeast for the workaround suggesstion.