The bug is about a firewall forbidding the connection. Why the trick won't
work? If I can't connect to the PASV port, I'd try PORT, even on successful
PASV response.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:52, Michal Zalewski <lcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I can't think of any. It would be nice to have active support. I'm not
> >> sure how easy it is to auto-detect which one we should use (since all
> the
> >> FTP clients I've ever used have forced me to specify manually).
> > It should be fairly easy. Send the PASV command--if the server sends
> > back a failure result code, fall back on active FTP and send a PORT
> > command.
>
> Are we trying to solve the problem of the server having no passive FTP
> support (how common would that be?), or of the server's firewall / NAT
> device not having FTP traffic inspection helpers?
>
> If the latter, which I suspect might be marginally more common, just
> probing for PASV and falling over to active mode then is not going to
> do the trick.
>
> /mz
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
