Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U)
From: "Benjamin P. Grubin" <bgrubin () pobox com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:11:32 -0500
I can't seem to understand why FXP logically *required* separate data channels any more than normal FTP operations. In fact, without separate data channels, the whole concept of FXP and FTP would have been simplified to remove such grossness as PASV and PORT. I always thought (and was somewhat reinforced by the RFC history) that the logical separation of the protocol interpreter and data transfer process were necessary to implement under NCP, and were just dragged to TCP to remain compatible or for historical reasons. In any case, I think it's pretty messy. But that's my opinion, I could be wrong. :) Cheers, Ben
-----Original Message----- From: firewall-wizards-admin () nfr com [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () nfr com] On Behalf Of Tom Kistner Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:15 AM To: Mikael Olsson Cc: firewall-wizards () nfr com Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) 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
_______________________________________________ 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) 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) Joseph S D Yao (Apr 03)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) R. DuFresne (Apr 04)
- Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U) Patrick M. Hausen (Apr 04)
- 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) 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)