Re: FTP alternative?

[Peter Eisch <peter%boku.net@localhost>]

On 10/3/08 4:33 PM, "Matthias Scheler" <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Peter Eisch wrote:
>> The client gets NAT'd when connecting out to the server.  The IP address
>> inside the PORT and other commands in the ftp session aren't getting NAT'd
>> and the RFC 1918 address leak out.
> 
> I know about the problems with active FTP and NAT.
> 
> But why do you use a client that uses "PORT" and not "PASV"? The only
> FTP client without passive mode support that is still sold is the
> command line client bundled with Windows. And I'm sure that there are
> replacements for that one.
> 
> Kind regards

I can't control the client in one case, the server in another -- it's an
older vendor product that has blue paint on it.

Adding 'proxy port ftp ftp/tcp' to a bimap statement helps some clients.

If there's any way I can help, please engage me.

Thank you,

peter