Re: active ftp through firewall
From: Barry Margolin (barmar_at_alum.mit.edu)
Date: 05/26/04
- Next message: Dr. David Kirkby: "Detecting hacking attempts - what should browsers *not* request?"
- Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: active ftp through firewall"
- In reply to: jpd: "Re: active ftp through firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:35:41 -0400
In article <1085580773.433322@ente.ipberlin.com>,
jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it> wrote:
> On 2004-05-20, phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu <phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Firewalls comes in many flavors. From the (too)simple ones who
> > can't keep state and/or do ftp up to "real ones".
>
> This makes sense, sort of. Basically, it's part what I've been saying before.
>
>
> > I think the simple d-link 604 can do ftp, and that must be defined
> > as "entry-level". So any "firewall" that don't do ftp seems outdated.
>
> *shrug* I think that's a cheap shot. All the world is not your silly
> home router. Worse, all the world is not hardware firewall boxen.
That's the point. If even the el-cheapo solutions can do it, surely the
fancier ones should be able to as well. And we're not just talking
about hardware boxes -- Checkpoint Firewall-1 and Gauntlet have always
handled active FTP properly, and they've been around for nearly a
decade. This is a feature that is common enough that it has come to be
expected as a normal feature of firewalls.
-- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Next message: Dr. David Kirkby: "Detecting hacking attempts - what should browsers *not* request?"
- Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: active ftp through firewall"
- In reply to: jpd: "Re: active ftp through firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
