March 17th, 2013, 12:35 PM
Problem connecting to Apache on Windows 7 from Windows XP
I have a situation where there is a computer that has a PHP application running on it (Windows 7, WAMP server, Kaspersky Internet Security).
The computer is connected to two separate networks via separate network cards. One is via a router connected to the Internet and a number of other computers (and uses DHCP to get an IP address in the 192.168.1.x range), the other is connected to a Hub and has an explicit IP address in the 10.0.0.x range.
I have modified the httpd.conf file to allow IP addresses from 192.168.1.* and 10.0.0.* as well as 127.0.0.1.
I'm able to access the PHP application from a computer on the 192.168.1.* network (also Windows 7), however no matter what I do I can't seem to access the site from a computer (Windows XP) on the 10.0.0.* network.
The network connection to the 10.0.0.x network is set as an "Unidentified Network" in Windows due to the fact there is no Internet connection and the IP address is self-assigned. The other is set as a "Work Network"
I tried the following the debug the problem:
* I turned off Windows Firewall
* I turned off Kaspersky
* I set the policy for Unidentified networks to be "Work" networks
* I confirmed I can ping between both computers and share files over the network
* I installed WireShark and monitored the network traffic on the computer (when instigating a HTTP request from the second computer, the first received a SYN, but didn't send an ACK in response)
I'm stuck and can't figure out how to get the second computer on the 10.0.0.* network to connect to the PHP application.
March 17th, 2013, 05:53 PM
If you run a route print command from the command prompt, does the Windows 7 machine hosting the site have a route to the 10.x.x.x. network (assuming so if file sharing works). The reason I ask is you're not getting sending/getting an ACK back. Just to clarify, you ran wireshark on the machine hosting the site correct?
March 17th, 2013, 09:53 PM
Thanks for getting back to me!
The computer in question is at my Dad's factory so I might take a little bit of time in between debugging steps. I'll try the route print command and post back.
Yes, I put Wireshark on the host machine.
March 18th, 2013, 12:38 AM
Here is the result of running route print on that computer Looks like I was wrong about the 192.168 range - it's 192.168.0.* not 192.168.1.* :P):
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
15...90 f6 52 03 4b 46 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller #2
14...90 f6 52 03 90 70 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller
1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1
13...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter
11...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface
16...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #2
IPv4 Route Table
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.4 20
10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
10.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.0.4 276
192.168.0.4 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.4 276
192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.4 276
184.108.40.206 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
220.127.116.11 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.0.4 276
18.104.22.168 240.0.0.0 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.4 276
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.0.1 276
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 Default
IPv6 Route Table
If Metric Network Destination Gateway
1 306 ::1/128 On-link
14 276 fe80::/64 On-link
15 276 fe80::/64 On-link
14 276 fe80::1083:508:a5aa:8585/128
15 276 fe80::b9bd:cb40:e31c:365b/128
1 306 ff00::/8 On-link
14 276 ff00::/8 On-link
15 276 ff00::/8 On-link
March 19th, 2013, 09:34 AM
Try deleting the persistent route that uses 10.0.0.1 from your routing table.
Also, try adding the local network 10.x to Kasperky's trusted zones if you haven't already.
March 19th, 2013, 10:43 AM
Would I do that by executing this:
Out of curiosity, what does a persistent route mean? As per my original description, the IP address for that network is self-assigned because there is no DHCP server. Is the persistent route created because of that or something else?
route -4 delete 10.0.0.1
March 19th, 2013, 11:11 AM
The persistent route is probably there because (guessing you have a static default gateway set to 10.0.0.1 on the other network connection. Try removing the default gateway address for that connection and the persistent route should go away. It has a higher metric so the PC should be using the other default route first (192.168.0.1); but just want to eliminate it as a possible source of the issue.
If you run netstat -a is the computer listening on port 80 for the 10.x.x.x IP?
Not really sure what's causing your issue so just trying to eliminate a few small things.
March 24th, 2013, 11:08 AM
Hey mate - thanks so much for your help!
I went to my dad's factory today and brought my laptop with me.
I tried deleting the permanent route and adding the safe zone on Kaspersky, but neither worked.
I connected my laptop to the network and it could see the site straight away, so I suspected it was the second computer that had the problem afterall. To confirm I opened up the firewall on my laptop and connected to IIS on port 80 from the first computer (worked) and couldn't get to it from the second (confirming there was something wrong with the second computer).
After much messing about I realised the problem was that someone had set up a proxy in the Internet Explorer settings to some random IP address that didn't exist. Removing that fixed the problem!
No idea why it looked like there was a SYN packet on the host computer given that the proxy thing would mean that wouldn't happen.
Either way, it's fixed now. Thanks again for your help!!
March 24th, 2013, 04:55 PM
Thanks for replying back with the fix....Maybe it can help someone else.