On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Michal Zalewski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
My reading of the bug is the former, since the latter would be fairly astonishing. Passive FTP does not require any special inspection by NAT, while active does. It's possible that they're using an application-level FTP proxy, but in that case, if it's what's enforcing "active only", I'd expect it to reject the PASV command. But it wouldn't hurt to get more detail before we leap into it. --Amanda --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
