I'm confused. Some significant length was gone to in attempting to interrogate the device and modify it in such a way that it wouldn't try to open uPnP ports anymore. Further, a lot of devices try to leverage uPnP by default, and many of them are significantly more opaque than this NAS proved to be. However, the author doesn't want to just disable uPnP in their router and manage forwarding directly due to a perceived loss of convenience.
Surely, first discovering by happenstance that a devices is doing this in the first place, then trying to figure out how to go through idiosyncratic & unsupported means to change the device's behavior, is significantly less convenient than updating a router/firewall config rules in supported standard predictable ways on occasion?
> My router is an ISP provisioned one so the feature-set there is somewhat limited
My assumption was that their router doesn't support disabling uPnP for a single client, so it's 100% on or 100% off. If they play a significant number of p2p games or use p2p applications with non-predictable ports, it might well be more difficult to do manual port-forwarding when needed than to leave uPnP enabled (or even impossible, depending on what the router can do).
Surely, first discovering by happenstance that a devices is doing this in the first place, then trying to figure out how to go through idiosyncratic & unsupported means to change the device's behavior, is significantly less convenient than updating a router/firewall config rules in supported standard predictable ways on occasion?