From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Jan 16 15:10:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEFD37B400 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0GNA2W33653; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:10:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:10:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200101162310.f0GNA2W33653@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: alo@iki.fi (Antti Louko) Subject: Re: misc/24048: natd/libalias doesn't always properly modify FTP PORT command Reply-To: alo@iki.fi (Antti Louko) Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR misc/24048; it has been noted by GNATS. From: alo@iki.fi (Antti Louko) To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/24048: natd/libalias doesn't always properly modify FTP PORT command Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:45 +0200 (EET) > natd (actually libalias/alias_db.c) only modifies FTP PORT commands > if they are immediately in the beginning of a new line. > This is implemented by having a flag which is set when a CR/LF > pair is detected. This works well except when PORT command > happens to be first command in the FTP session. > I don't see the major problem with this change, but is this allowed by FTP protocol specs? (The first command being a PORT command.) I would guess so. In RFC959, page 45, there is an example of a client transferring data between two servers. In that example, the first command to one of the servers is a PORT command. Of course one could argue that the authentication has been left out of the example but I cannot see any place where the authentication would be required. Regards, Antti Louko To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message