Heads Up :
The post you are writing will appear in a public forum. Please ensure all content is appropriate for public consumption. Review the employee guidelines for the community here.
Apologies in advance: I posted this to a different (wrong) forum and don't see how to move it, so here's a cross post.I have an rv325 with firmware version 1.4.2.15 (the latest as of now). I recently performed the upgrade to this firmware.I don't all...
I have an rv325 with firmware version 1.4.2.15 (the latest as of now). I recently performed the upgrade to this firmware.I don't allow anything to connect to it from the outside except for port 443, which I have forwarded to an internal server. Rem...
I have an RV325, firmware v1.1.1.06. One of my vlans is a /26 subnet that doesn't start at 0; it contains addresses 64-127 (with the router at 65). I'm trying to configure an external port forward from port 80 to .66 (in this case, 192.168.4.66). ...
As I said in the original post:
"I was able to mitigate this by creating a firewall rule to block these two ports from the WAN."
So yes. But unless you know to do this, the ports are left open by default.
That's good, but you're testing an rv345. There are many people still using the rv32x devices, and I would think that Cisco would be concerned about leaving them vulnerable, especially in a way that's not documented and not likely to be noticed. No...
