Dietpi on OrangePiZero3. Updated from v9.18 to v9.19 and got “sending survey data failed”.
Now tried to execute dietpi-survey and the result is:
[ OK ] DietPi-Survey | Desired setting in /boot/dietpi.txt was already set: SURVEY_OPTED_IN=1
[.. ]cat: /tmp/G_EXEC_LOG: No such file or directory
[FAILED] DietPi-Survey | Sending survey data
- Command: curl -m 20 -sT eb93452b-7436-4a73-82bd-1263c8b80674.txt sftp://dietpi-survey:upload2dietpi@ssh.dietpi.com:29248/survey/
This is freshly installed DietPi without any modifications. So, assume survey should work fine.
If it still fails: dietpi-survey is intentionally not verbose on errors, to not annoy users with details especially when they did not even opt in. So to get more curl output, try this:
192.168.2.1 is temporary, ISP delivered router, 5G. The one that shoud be returned when I terminate contract with them. I keep my home network intact, just connect ISP router in front.
So it looks like the packets never pass the 5G router. Maybe check whether it has some firewall or filter for certain ports. Maybe outgoing traffic for the non-privileged ports above 1023 is blocked, or on ports with more than 4 digits.
show same as before, packets never pass the 5G router.
I went inside 5G router to see what I can do and I found
Firewall security level
High: Traffic denied inbound and minimally permit common service outbound.
Low: All outbound traffic and pinhole-defined inbound traffic is allowed.
Off: All inbound and outbound traffic is allowed.
It was “High”, but when I changed to “Low”
root@DietPi2:\~# tcptraceroute ssh.dietpi.com 29248
Selected device wlan0, address 192.168.1.208, port 46925 for outgoing packets
Tracing the path to ssh.dietpi.com (148.251.76.252) on TCP port 29248, 30 hops max
1 192.168.1.1 1.105 ms 1.261 ms 4.082 ms
2 192.168.2.1 4.724 ms 2.115 ms 2.196 ms
3 10.163.80.2 153.637 ms 28.143 ms 54.070 ms
4 10.246.210.29 29.788 ms 27.667 ms 28.412 ms
5 101.115.191.250 31.136 ms 21.054 ms 16.091 ms
6 \* bri-apt-wic-wgw1-be-50.tpg.com.au (203.219.106.141) 158.332 ms \*
7 \* \* \*
8 \* \* \*
9 \* \* \*
10 \* \* \*
11 \* \* \*
12 \* \* dls-bb1-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.140.237) 428.834 ms
13 \* \* \*
14 \* \* \*
15 \* rest-bb1-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.138.70) 394.978 ms \*
16 \* \* \*
17 \* \* \*
18 \* \* \*
19 \* hbg-b2-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.120.71) 349.241 ms \*
20 \* \* \*
21 \* \* \*
22 ex9k2.dc11.fsn1.hetzner.com (213.239.229.10) 487.789 ms \* \*
23 \* \* \*
24 \* \* \*
25 \* \* \*
26 \* \* \*
27 \* \* mail.dietpi.com (148.251.76.252) \[open\] 364.395 ms
and then finally
root@DietPi2:\~# dietpi-survey
\[ OK \] DietPi-Survey | Desired setting in /boot/dietpi.txt was already set: SURVEY_OPTED_IN=1
\[ OK \] DietPi-Survey | Sending survey data
Great. I guess port 22 would have worked then, but as said, we use a non-standard port intentionally to reduce spam in our system logs and network load.
The “Low” profile looks like what I know as common NAT standard: all outbound traffic allowed, inbound only for explicitly defined forwarded ports. If there are concerns about malicious software doing unwanted outbound connections via non-standard ports, probably there is also a way to explicitly define outbound ports to additionally allow with “High” profile.
.
.