RV325 Admin Interface - 403 Forbidden

[Tim5]

Hi All,

I've been experiencing an issue with the latest version of firmware (1.4.2.19) for the RV325 small business router. If I attempt to manage the device using the web based admin interface from a VLAN other than the default VLAN (1), I receive a 403 forbidden error message when I enter my login credentials and attempt to login. I have been able to replicate this on a factory reset RV325 using the following steps.

1. Set new password on default account (as required).

2. Enable VLAN's under Port Management, VLAN Membership.

3. Create a new VLAN, enable Device Management.

4. Set a switchport to be an untagged member of the new VLAN.

5. Restart the router.

6. Connect PC to the switchport that is an untagged member of the new VLAN.

7. Navigate to the devices web based admin interface and enter login credentials.

Following the above steps should hopefully re-create the error. I'd be interested if anyone had any other experiences. Grateful for any advice as to how I could resolve this problem.

Thank you,

Tim

[NorthernGillis]

Hi;

I also can confirm this, and it seems to be an issue with the 1.4 firmware stream.  Looks like its discussed here:  

https://community.cisco.com/t5/small-business-routers/rv325-login-issue-after-upgrading-to-1-4-2-15/td-p/3185089

It is quite frustrating and sure hope it is resolved soon.  Lucky for me I am fine with managing on the default VLAN due to my configuration but its amazing something like that has passed QA.  I cant imagine having to deploy this to a remote site.   It must be something in the code for the admin interface to only allow access to the interface on VLAN 1.

[Tim5]

Hi,

Thank you for the reply and link.

Good to know I'm not the only one having this issue, I completely missed that discussion. It's definitely a frustrating problem and I'm glad you've been able to work around the issue for the time being. It's disappointing Cisco hasn't taken the time to respond given the number of people reporting the problem.

It would be great if a Cisco rep could confirm that this problem has been raised as bug that will be addressed in the next firmware release.

Tim