Recommended Posts

Hi.

I am setting up an FTPS server using FileZilla on a Server 2008 R2 VM but I am struggling to get the directory listings up.

I have created the certificate and key password and it imports without any problem into FileZilla (client) but I get the log below

Status: Connection established, initializing TLS...

Status: Verifying certificate...

Status: TLS/SSL connection established, waiting for welcome message...

Response: 220-FileZilla Server version 0.9.41 beta

Response: 220 Welcome to The Swann Group download site.

Command: USER JasonW

Response: 331 Password required for jasonw

Command: PASS *********

Response: 230 Logged on

Command: PBSZ 0

Response: 200 PBSZ=0

Command: PROT P

Response: 200 Protection level set to P

Status: Connected

Status: Retrieving directory listing...

Command: PWD

Response: 257 "/" is current directory.

Command: TYPE I

Response: 200 Type set to I

Command: PORT 84,21,143,150,192,13

Response: 200 Port command successful

Command: MLSD

Response: 150 Opening data channel for directory list.

Response: 425 Can't open data connection.

Error: Failed to retrieve directory listing

Response: 421 Connection timed out.

Error: Connection closed by server

And from the server I get,

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - (not logged in) (
84.21.**.**
)> Connected, sending welcome message...

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - (not logged in) (
84.21.**.**
)> SSL connection established

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - (not logged in) (
84.21.**.**
)> USER JasonW

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - (not logged in) (
84.21.**.**
)> 331 Password required for jasonw

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - (not logged in) (
84.21.**.**
)> PASS *********

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 230 Logged on

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> PBSZ 0

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:49 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 200 PBSZ=0

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:50 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> PROT P

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:50 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 200 Protection level set to P

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:50 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> PWD

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:50 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 257 "/" is current directory.

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> TYPE I

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 200 Type set to I

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> PORT 84,21,143,150,192,13

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 200 Port command successful

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> MLSD

(000036)18/12/2012 13:36:51 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 150 Opening data channel for directory list.

(000036)18/12/2012 13:37:01 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 425 Can't open data connection.

(000036)18/12/2012 13:40:02 - jasonw (
84.21.**.**
)> 421 Connection timed out.

(000036)18/12/2012 13:40:02 - jasonw (84.21.**.**)> disconnected.

I have checked all outgoing ports are set to allow all traffic with in the set range.

Any thoughts on what I am missing?

Edited by Intrinsica
: edited at OP's request
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1126484-setting-up-ftps-with-filezilla/
Share on other sites

So your attempting a active connection there - your telling the client to connect to

PORT 84,21,xx,xx,192,13

I snipped out part of that IP, because of privacy concerns - I would suggest you edit that. Anyway you told the server to connect to that IP on port

192*256 + 13 = 49165, since your control channel is inside a encrypted connection (ssl/tls) the helper portion of most firewalls/routers can not open the return port for you.

Also from this

jasonw (84.21.xx.xx)> disconnected

where that is the same IP as your server? Are you attempting this from a loopback forward/nat reflection, ie are you on the same network as your server -- which I would assume is behind a nat? Maybe not? That can cause grief as well. And using the public ip of your router to try and connect where your router wold have to forward/reflect the traffic back into the servers private IP?

So questions for you - is your server behind a nat and really on a private IP? And this 84.21 is your public? Where is your client? is it outside your local network?

Great info when wanting to use ftp

http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html

This goes over the difference between active and passive connections - which you need to know what your going to be using or allowing, etc. And you need to understand if your firewall/router has helper feature to change private to pubic, and allow the return data channel traffic in the firewall states, etc.

What firewall/router is your server/clients behind - if any?

After the day I am having I can fully believe I did that too (left IP in there), unfortunately I cant edit my previous post so will ask a mod to.

84.21.*.* is the client external IP, the server IP is 194.88.*.*

The server is behind Sonicwall NSA2400`s running in a High availability set up, apparently it is one range inside and one range out, they are 2 devices running in HA mode for resilience so one is effectively in standby. They share an IP inside and out and virtual MAC address, We are going to temporarily fully open the ports tomorrow and see if that 'solves' the issue. At least then we can see if it is firewall or setup. The client is behind a Cisco ASA server.

A little back ground to the project.

We are moving data centres and ISP from our old provider (the 84.21.*.*) to a new DC (a 194.88.*.*) - both are public IP's. Currently all of our web based traffic is exiting through the old provider while I transfer the hosted server services from old to new DC. New routers are due to arrive to connect the 2 new connections for our new ISP, one is web based traffic only with failover to the DC, other is MPLS dedicated connection to hosted servers.

Currently I am testing the access to the web/ftp server from outside the PWAN which is where I am getting this problem.

So,

The server is behind the Sonicwalls with a public IP of 194.88.*.*, private IP is 192.168.200.*. The client is on a separate PWAN using the public IP of 84.21.*.*, private IP is 192.168.11.*.

I am going to take a look at that article tonight and see what I am missing.

So on the client end your helper is not going to be able to see what port your client is listening on for the server to connect back to you because its inside a ssl/tls tunnel

This is the issue with ftps!!

So you could try a passive connection - but then your going to have issues with opening the ports on the server side because again the helper can not see what ports are going to be used.

Take a look at this article

http://wiki.filezill...k_Configuration

You should be able to setup the server side to use specific ports for the active connections - and then forward those on your firewall, etc. Another question for you are you going to be dong Implicit or Explicit. Since you called it ftps and not ftpes I would have think your using Implicit?

You know what is a MUCH EASIER solution -- use SFTP, there is only 1 port involved (22) because its over SSH. You can change that port if you want - but its still only 1 port!! No active/passive **** with split control and data channels. Much easier to work through nat and firewalls with ;)

Think I am gonna stick with FTPS (for now), prefer to fix this and learn a little and if I still cant get it going, will switch to SFTP.

So I have set FileZilla to use a specific port range and have requested the people who manage the server side NAT to fully open these ports to test the connection. Next I need to connect forcing passive mode so it is the client that establishes the data connection. So from that I now get this log from the client.

Status: Connection established, initializing TLS

Status: Verifying certificate

Status: TLS/SSL connection established, waiting for welcome message...

Response: 220-FileZilla Server version 0.9.41 beta

Response: 220 Welcome to The Swann Group download site.

Command: USER JasonW

Response: 331 Password required for jasonw[Command: PASS *********

Response: 230 Logged on

Command: PBSZ 0

Response: 200 PBSZ=0

Command: PROT P

Response: 200 Protection level set to P

Status: Connected

Status: Retrieving directory listing...

Command: PWD

Response: 257 "/" is current directory

Command: TYPE I

Response: 200 Type set to I

Command: PASV

Response: 227 Entering Passive Mode (217,161,**.**,58,153)

Command: MLSD

Error: GnuTLS error -53: Error in the push function

Response: 425 Can't open data connection

Error: Failed to retrieve directory listing

Response: 421 Connection timed out

Error: Connection closed by server

The IP address is completely wrong, not sure where that came from so I am looking into that but it is using the correct port.

Yeah that 217.161 is the IP the server is telling the client to connect too. It should be the same IP you connected too for the control channel connection.

that port would be 58x256 + 153 so 15001

Look in your server settings on where its getting IP from.. Could be going out a different connection your coming into it from? You can set that IP in the same place you set the ports to use for passive.

Well that makes no sense then. Other than if it thinks its local connection? You could try unchecking that and see what IP gets sent back. Clearly your hard coding the IP which is different than what your seeing.

Is it possible your connecting to a different ftp server? Did you try restarting the ftp server once you made that setting?

VICTORY!!

After a reboot and clearing the check box,

Response: 220-FileZilla Server version 0.9.41 beta

Response: 220 Welcome to The Swann Group download site.

Command: USER JasonW

Response: 331 Password required for jasonw

Command: PASS *********

Response: 230 Logged on

Command: PBSZ 0

Response: 200 PBSZ=0

Command: PROT P

Response: 200 Protection level set to P

Status: Connected

Status: Retrieving directory listing...

Command: PWD

Response: 257 "/" is current directory.

Status: Directory listing successful

Not sure if it was the reboot or clearing the check box but as all traffic to and from the FTP server will be from a public address then the box can stay cleared.

Thanks Budman, your help is very much appreciated!.

Glad you got it working, shouldn't have to worry about the checkbox if you don't have local users connecting, etc. But may need it if you do?? Prob put it back and connect from local machine, etc.

Although we are connected via an MPLS PWAN all ftp traffic is routed through a second connection so it should always be a public IP, but definitely worth noting though.

I even got to learn something new about active and passive connections which after the telephone conversation I just had with the managers and owners is quite a feat! Apparently a data centre migration is a simple task and should only take a couple of days.........

Understanding the difference between an active or passive ftp connection is 1st step in wanting to run a ftp server, or even connect to one when NAT is involved or firewalls even if everyone is on same network or fully public connections, etc.

These days most every client is going to be behind a nat - this will change as ipv6 takes hold. So you will run into issues all the time with either active or passive connections. Most firewalls and even home routers have helper features for ftp to allow the data side of the connection - but as you learned with ftps this all changes because the helper can not view the info to either change the IP sent to public vs private and or open the firewall for the connection by working out the ports given in the pasv or port command.

This thread should be a good reference for others looking to do the same thing as well.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft 365 security in the spotlight after Washington Post hack by Paul Hill The Washington Post has come under cyberattack which saw Microsoft email accounts of several journalists get compromised. The attack, which was discovered last Thursday, is believed to have been conducted by a foreign government due to the topics the journalists cover, including national security, economic policy, and China. Following the hack, the passwords on the affected accounts were reset to prevent access. The fact that a Microsoft work email account was potentially hacked strongly suggests The Washington Post utilizes Microsoft 365, which makes us question the security of Microsoft’s widely used enterprise services. Given that Microsoft 365 is very popular, it is a hot target for attackers. Microsoft's enterprise security offerings and challenges As the investigation into the cyberattack is still ongoing, just how attackers gained access to the accounts of the journalists is unknown, however, Microsoft 365 does have multiple layers of protection that ought to keep journalists safe. One of the security tools is Microsoft Defender for Office 365. If the hackers tried to gain access with malicious links, Defender provides protection against any malicious attachments, links, or email-based phishing attempts with the Advanced Threat Protection feature. Defender also helps to protect against malware that could be used to target journalists at The Washington Post. Another security measure in place is Entra ID which helps enterprises defend against identity-based attacks. Some key features of Entra ID include multi-factor authentication which protects accounts even if a password is compromised, and there are granular access policies that help to limit logins from outside certain locations, unknown devices, or limit which apps can be used. While Microsoft does offer plenty of security technologies with M365, hacks can still take place due to misconfiguration, user-error, or through the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities. Essentially, it requires efforts from both Microsoft and the customer to maintain security. Lessons for organizations using Microsoft 365 The incident over at The Washington Post serves as a stark reminder that all organizations, not just news organizations, should audit and strengthen their security setups. Some of the most important security measures you can put in place include mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users, especially for privileged accounts; strong password rules such as using letters, numbers, and symbols; regular security awareness training; and installing any security updates in a timely manner. Many of the cyberattacks that we learn about from companies like Microsoft involve hackers taking advantage of the human in the equation, such as being tricked into sharing passwords or sharing sensitive information due to trickery on behalf of the hackers. This highlights that employee training is crucial in protecting systems and that Microsoft’s technologies, as advanced as they are, can’t mitigate all attacks 100 percent of the time.
    • Comments like these are genuinely fascinating to me because they're so far from anything I experience as a daily user of Win 11 since the first public beta. AI stuff? Have it turned off completely, never pops up anywhere. Forced MS account? Yes, they strongly recommend it and kinda push it lately during big updates and such, but it's still not forced. Pop up dialogs when you're not using Edge? Yeah, I vaguely remember seeing some reminders about using Edge a long time ago. I just clicked them away and kept using Vivaldi as usual (but frankly, I'd still much rather use Edge than Chrome - which I'm forced to use at work - I've grown to dislike Google a lot more than Microsoft lately, even if I am still deeply rooted in their ecosystem unfortunately). Awful context menus? A single simple tweak will get you the old context menus. Search in Windows using Bing? People use search in Windows for anything else than to search for local files or apps? Why? I just don't get a lot of the complains people have about Win 11.
    • Nice, but if you change the colour, the folder no longer shows image preview on the actual folder icon.
    • Taiwan hits Huawei and SMIC with new export restrictions by David Uzondu Taiwan has added Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, to its export control entity list. According to CNBC, this means companies in Taiwan now need a special license to ship certain high-tech goods to these two mainland Chinese firms. The conflict has been escalating for a while. The United States government, for instance, has been going after Huawei since at least 2019, putting the telecom equipment maker on its own Entity List over national security fears. The worry has always been about Huawei's connections to the Chinese government and the potential for its network gear to be used for spying. The United Kingdom eventually followed suit, ordering all Huawei 5G equipment to be ripped out of its networks by 2027. Remember, in December 2020, the US added SMIC to its Entity List over its alleged ties to the Chinese military. The goal was to choke off the chipmaker's access to the tools it needs to produce the most advanced semiconductors. Despite all the pressure, the two firms managed to collaborate and produce a 7nm chip for Huawei's Mate 60 phone, which annoyed some people in Washington who thought the sanctions had completely crippled China's chipmaking ambitions. This new blacklisting from Taiwan just tightens the screws even more. Last year, research firm TechInsights found a TSMC-made chip inside a Huawei AI training card. That was a huge "oh no" moment because it showed that, despite all the American restrictions, Huawei was still getting its hands on advanced Taiwanese silicon. That discovery led directly to the U.S. Commerce Department leaning on TSMC to shut down access for Chinese clients to specific AI chips. Huawei had cleverly exploited loopholes to hoard millions of GPU dies for its Ascend AI chip program, a direct attempt to build a homegrown alternative to Nvidia's dominant hardware. For Taiwan, this feels less like a trade issue and more like a matter of survival. The island's lead in chipmaking, largely thanks to TSMC, is often seen as its "silicon shield." The idea is that global reliance on Taiwanese chips makes any military action by China a huge risk for the world. Letting its most advanced tech reach the country that threatens its very existence could seriously weaken that shield. Source: CNBC
    • Anything is "news worthy" if it's new and someone writes about it. Something like an inconsequential note about "correcting a typo in the readme file" buried deep in the changelog could become "news worthy". And, on related note, anything can be used as a justification to complain about something one is clearly already biased against. Say, if someone's biased against Windows 11, they could see even an inconsequential change like an added time display as a reason to rant about "Microsoft these days"... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Recent Achievements

    • Explorer
      Legend20 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • One Month Later
      jezzzy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      CSpera earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      MIR JOHNNY BLAZE earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Apprentice
      Wireless wookie went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      617
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      277
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      179
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      150
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      115
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!