Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U)
From: Tom Kistner <tom () duncanthrax net>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:15:18 +0200
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Mikael Olsson (mikael.olsson () clavister com) wrote:
Heck, simply moving the data channel to an in-line channel in the port 21 connection would be by far more preferable, and easier to implement to boot. I can't believe they botched the perfectly good chance of clearing up this old mess when they adapted FTP to IPv6, rather than just extending the "PORT" and "227" messages to handle IPv6 addresses in ASCII format. (But then again, I'm a grumpy security guy whose pet peeve is protocols with dynamic channels, not a stressed-out engineer who needs to get things working yesterday.)
Theres a good reason for the data channels to be on separate connections: Server-to-Server transfers, commonly known as "FXP". That feature was used quite a lot in "the old days". Today, it's used mainly for warez currying. So i'd say it's not an old mess, FTP just stays the way it is even in IPv6. There are umpteen other ways to transfer files, why not use one of those ? /tom -- Tom Kistner <tom () duncanthrax net> ICQ 1501527 dcanthrax@efnet http://duncanthrax.net _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () nfr com http://list.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U), (continued)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Marcus J. Ranum (Apr 05)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Joseph S D Yao (Apr 06)
- Re: Strength in diversity: was - The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Marcus J. Ranum (Apr 06)
- Re: Strength in diversity: was - The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Joseph S D Yao (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Ng Pheng Siong (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Ng Pheng Siong (Apr 05)
- RE: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Benjamin P. Grubin (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Mikael Olsson (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Fritz Ames (Apr 06)
- RE: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Benjamin P. Grubin (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Mikael Olsson (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Mikael Olsson (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Mikael Olsson (Apr 06)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Carson Gaspar (Apr 16)