On Thursday 16 January 2003 04:51 am, Henning Brauer wrote: > 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.
i've typically used proftp, but pure ftp was looking actractiveto me and i was planning to take it for a test drive. thanks for the recommendation. presently this guy's ftp server is still on windoze, and he doesn't know how/if to restrict ftp-data port range, so it looks like i may have to opt for jftpgw until we can get a unix server deployed. -- Regards, Ken Gunderson
