I´m new to this but not a total noob so when I reache out I have no clue what to do next.
Fast background, I tougt it was the fw but its not everthing is working on port80 but get som error and I cant for my life get what the issue is.
I hope someone knows what going on and can lend me a helping hand.
Time to go back to your firewall or other anti-malware software. The "short response" error messages are indicating a different type of blocking, that based on the app using HTTP to transfer data. Some firewalls/antimalware by default only allow data downloads from "known browsers" such as Firefox, Chrome, Edge and the like and block it being done by any other software. You will probably need to add an exception for the FAHClient app portion of the F@h software, it transfers data over ports 80 and 8080 using HTTP.
Which firewall is being used? As I stated, this blocking is on by default in a number of firewalls, it is not some setting you will see. It can also be in your router. For example I see from your posting IP that you are in Europe. A common issue we have seen in the past is European users with a Fritz!Box will see this type of blocking on by default. This is known as stateful packet filtering, any packet containing data for a non-recognized browser or app using HTTP will be blocked. It is also a default for the Windows firewall. If you are behind an institutional firewall that may also be the default and you would have to have the IT people handling the firewall make an exception for FAHClient.
The thing is I´m one of the IT guys. I have two FaH VMs in my works datacenterlab, We have a Hua firewall and a Cumulus Gateway in the lab and nothing on port 80 is blockt.
Then is we have an other firewall and a gateway for the corpret that the lab is behind and I dont know the brand of those.
I also have no easy way to manage those so I maybe just need to give this up.
I will include the usual caution that you should have permission, preferably in writing, from management to be running the F@h software on corporate systems. It is included in the terms of use that F@h only be run on systems you own or have permission to run it on.
You are only partly understanding the blocking. The firewall is not blocking on the use of port 80, but on the contents of the network packets. If it sees data over over the port it checks whether the contents is for a known browser. If it is, then the data is passed. Otherwise it is blocked. An exception list can add FAHClient to the apps for which content is accepted. This may take talking with the IT persons who manage the corporate firewall, having management permissions is important at that point.
Joe_H wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:03 pm
I will include the usual caution that you should have permission, preferably in writing, from management to be running the F@h software on corporate systems. It is included in the terms of use that F@h only be run on systems you own or have permission to run it on.
I have askt for premisson first so thats no issue
Joe_H wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:03 pm
You are only partly understanding the blocking. The firewall is not blocking on the use of port 80, but on the contents of the network packets. If it sees data over over the port it checks whether the contents is for a known browser. If it is, then the data is passed. Otherwise it is blocked. An exception list can add FAHClient to the apps for which content is accepted. This may take talking with the IT persons who manage the corporate firewall, having management permissions is important at that point.
Yeah, I got what you said and I understand the blocking, and its confirmd with the networkguys. But I dont want to hazzel with applying for an allowens rule. So are there any other workarounds?
swagaton wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:35 am
And when are 443 going to be an option?
With the version 8 client. The client process may still need adding to an exception list if packet filtering includes all ports including 443 and looks for "known browsers" transferring data. Version 8 was just released for an open Beta test. It does not yet have all of the features of the v7 client, but this may get added in later releases. The source for the client and the web interface are both open source, there is no separate advanced control GUI like FAHControl.
swagaton wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:35 am
And when are 443 going to be an option?
With the version 8 client. The client process may still need adding to an exception list if packet filtering includes all ports including 443 and looks for "known browsers" transferring data. Version 8 was just released for an open Beta test. It does not yet have all of the features of the v7 client, but this may get added in later releases. The source for the client and the web interface are both open source, there is no separate advanced control GUI like FAHControl.
Aha, I see!
Hade this all thing on ice for some days and desided to make it work and made a workaround with a bit of brainpower and some hours setting up a VPN server. Folding like a boos for the past hour!