| Author |
Message |
Cyan~Fire
I'll count you!
Age:37
Gender:
Joined: Jul 14 2003
Posts: 4608
Location: A Dream
Offline
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:48 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
 |
 |
|
|
Yeah, obviously neither of you have any clue what you're talking about.
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phong
Seasoned Helper
Gender:
Joined: Jul 19 2005
Posts: 156
Offline
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:51 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Cyan~Fire wrote: | | Yeah, obviously neither of you have any clue what you're talking about. |
Care to reiterate in detail?
You do realize that in active mode it is the server that decides what the data port will be and in passive it is the client that decides?
Unless you have a stateful firewall or want to teach all of your clients how to unblock a port you decide from their firewall then passive is the way to go.. probably why it is most common.
Then again maybe I dont know what i'm talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solo Ace
Yeah, I'm in touch with reality...we correspond from time to time.
Age:38
Gender:
Joined: Feb 06 2004
Posts: 2583
Location: The Netherlands
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:21 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| phong wrote: | | Then again maybe I dont know what i'm talking about. |
Are you sure?
| phong wrote: | | You do realize that in active mode it is the server that decides what the data port will be and in passive it is the client that decides? |
In active mode the server will connect back to the client from port 20 (ftp-data), the destination port on the client's side was chosen, of course, by the client.
In passive mode port 21 is still used as control port, but for data transfers the client connects to a port number specified by the server.
| phong wrote: | | probably why it is most common. |
The reason why passive FTP is "most common" is because server admins can't expect all of their clients will not be behind a firewall or NAT (or anything else causing a connect attempt to fail).
Active FTP is easier to setup for server admins and would be easier to secure, but making their FTPd reachable for their clients is most likely easier for them than it is for their clients to setup an active FTP transfer.
Also, why does it matter if you're a host with 150+ websites? Anyone who runs a FTP server wants to be reachable, whatever his role is.
There's no reason to give any numbers. I farted 30+ times yesterday, doesn't that make me look cool? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:52 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Why did you just verify everything I said?
I gave reference to numbers because if I was running an ftp server that was only going to have 1 client connecting, I would run in active because I could block just about every port on my server, telling the one client to unblock 20 or whatever data port I decide.
But once again, why the fuck did you verify everything I said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire
I'll count you!
Age:37
Gender:
Joined: Jul 14 2003
Posts: 4608
Location: A Dream
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:33 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, just having a bad day yesterday, excuse my yelling.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solo Ace
Yeah, I'm in touch with reality...we correspond from time to time.
Age:38
Gender:
Joined: Feb 06 2004
Posts: 2583
Location: The Netherlands
Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:47 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I didn't verify what you said.
What you tried to say about how active/passive works is too vague, and it works the other way around.
I guess you tried to say the same about the reason for passive FTP (don't you think it's a little badly worded, though?) but I guess you meant the stateful firewall to be on the client's side (which would be odd since the rest of what you said is from the server's point of view, though).
Anyways, whatever, not like it matters, this is completely off-topic.
I'm going to update a few Windows machines, this GRE exploit is scary (while I'm typing this one of my friend's MSN starts saying lame things to me while he tells me he got virus'd, hah). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kitsune!
Guest
Offline
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:05 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: oO; |
|
|
|
|
Mmmkay. This dude shouldn't be hosting servers if he dosen't know the diffrence between FTP and HTTP.
FTP server == You host FILES, File Transfer Protocol.
HTTP == You host WEBPAGES, Hyper Text Transfer Protocol.
God. Dude.. If there's any list of the most incompetent webmasters, you'd be #2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mine GO BOOM
Hunch Hunch
What What
Age:42
Gender:
Joined: Aug 01 2002
Posts: 3615
Location: Las Vegas
Offline
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:20 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: Re: oO; |
|
|
|
|
| Kitsune! wrote: | | This dude shouldn't be hosting servers if he dosen't know the diffrence between FTP and HTTP. |
I host files more often on HTTP than anything else. Also, HTTP isn't what it used to be. Ignoring the whole AJAX crap, take WebDev for example. Over HTTP, you can mount a file system with it.
FTP is rarely used for file hosting anymore. And even then, it is usually for either the web administrator, the system administrator, or for hosting illegal files. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire
I'll count you!
Age:37
Gender:
Joined: Jul 14 2003
Posts: 4608
Location: A Dream
Offline
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:43 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| AJAX is cool, but it's getting way too overused. I'd probably want to go into IT if I didn't know I'd be forced into using that crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Statistics
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
I'm back... 
