On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:08:04PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:03:31PM -0700, Ken Gunderson wrote: > > > Anyhow, I patched ftp-proxy for reverse and have it up and running. > > Question is, how robust is this? (am wondering why it was not merged > > into 3.2). Can anyone comment on security/performance comparison > > between ftp-proxy reverse and alternative solutions such as jftpgw? > > I haven't used jftpgw myself, but it serves about the same purpose, I'd > say. It also supports sftp, which ftp-proxy doesn't.
pureftpd has the required feature to use the external address in-band. I use it here heavily, and I have checked the chunks of code I use (base and ldap-auth; didn't bother to check mysql auth and the other stuff I don't even compile in; I trust it. Well, as long as you don't use the virtual chroot stuff. Didn't check it, but that gives me a bad feeling. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
