R: New ftp behavior

["Franco RUGGIERI" <fruggieri () selfin net>]

Wyllys,
help me understand: a firewall proxy should be alerted because an FTP
server, right the one he just interrogated in PASV mode, replies by giving
the port to which ask for data?
*This* does look to me to be a poorly designed firewall (IMHO, of course).
If a firewall, whose proxy requests a PASV FTP, cannot handle it...
Please show me I'm wrong: I love to learn!

-------------------------------
Franco RUGGIERI
fruggieri () selfin net

----------
> Da: Wyllys Ingersoll <wyllys () reston ans net>
> A: firewall-wizards () nfr net
> Oggetto: Re: New ftp behavior
> Data: venerdì 24 ottobre 1997 13.40
>
>
> The FTP problem described by Delmar might be corrected by 
> having the FTP proxy on the clients firewall attempt to do
> a PASV (passive) mode connection to the ftp server.  However
> this is not necessarily a better idea, because in passive mode,
> the server tells the client (in this case the FTP proxy requesting
> the file) what host and port to connect to in order to receive
> the actual data.  If the server tells the proxy to connect
> to a different host, then a strictly written proxy might
> very well say "hmmm, thats not the place where I originally
> made the request, I'm going to report an error and forget it."
>
>
> >      I have seen this with a Sidewinder firewall in particular.
Probably 
> >      happens with others as well if you are NATing and doing some
passthru. 
> >      The funny thing is that many HTTP firewalls normally won't
complain 
> >      about this type of activity when similar things occur with HTTP.
[ie 
> >      -- allow a request to one ip address, reply from another]  I have 
> >      often thought this to be a potential hole with some firewall 
> >      implementations....but haven't taken the time to try to break it
yet.
> HTTP proxies don't suffer this problem because an HTTP transfer only
> ever involves a single connection to the server for every transaction.
> The HTTP proxy always initiates the connection to the web server, so 
> there is no chance of it going to an unintended web site (unless someone 
> has corrupted the DNS records, but that is another story).  FTP
> is different because it involves 2 connections to the FTP server,
> one for the "control" connection, and a second one for doing 
> tranferring the data between the proxy and the ftp server.
>
> --
>  Wyllys Ingersoll
>  ANS Communications