> Is that even necessary? The DataConnectionConfig already has an > SslConfiguration property. If that property is set, doesn't that imply that > the data channel should use SSL?
The SSL Configuration for the data connection tells the server that if a Client wants to use a secure channel, use the certificates and protocols specified in the SSL configuration. But, if the client does not or cannot do a secure data connection, the server should fall back to a plain data connection unless otherwise instructed (with the new parameter I was talking about). To further explain my reasoning, let us say I'm a web hosting service that give out an FTP account to all the members. For member A, the data is not sensitive, so he does not want to use secure data channel but may want to use SSL on the control connection so a hacker wont be able to steal the password. At the same time, member B transfers very sensitive information to/from the server and he wants to secure the data transfers by using a client software that is capable of doing this. Let me know what you think. Sai Pullabhotla Phone: (402) 408-5753 Fax: (402) 408-6861 www.jMethods.com On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kevin Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sai, > >>> I don't think it is a good idea to change the default, >>> but it would be nice to add a new option to the dataConnection to >>> force SSL. > > Is that even necessary? The DataConnectionConfig already has an > SslConfiguration property. If that property is set, doesn't that imply that > the data channel should use SSL? > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Sai Pullabhotla < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> There are cases where a client/server just want a secure channel on >> the control connection (encrypt user name and password), but not the >> data itself. I don't think it is a good idea to change the default, >> but it would be nice to add a new option to the dataConnection to >> force SSL. >> >> Sai Pullabhotla >> Phone: (402) 408-5753 >> Fax: (402) 408-6861 >> www.jMethods.com >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Kevin Conaway <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I apologize for replying to myself but I have some more thoughts. >> > >> > To me, the "implied" part of "implicit SSL" means that at the application >> > level, the user isn't aware that the FTP session is being conducted over >> > SSL. Having to issue a PROT command to set the data protection level >> > violates the spirit of that assumption. >> > >> > Perhaps this is just my limited imagination, but I'm having a hard time >> > envisioning a scenario with implicit SSL where you would always want the >> > control channel to be encrypted but not the data channel. Isn't that >> what >> > explicit FTPS is for? >> > >> > I have a patch ready that will force the data channel to "secure" mode if >> > the Listener is in "implicit" mode but I'm not sure of the implications >> of >> > making that switch. Would it be permissible to at least have this >> available >> > as a configuration option? >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Kevin Conaway <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Although the definition of "FTP with implicit SSL" varies depending on >> who >> >> you ask, its my understanding that it means that the entire FTP session >> is >> >> conducted over TLS/SSL. >> >> >> >> If thats true, shouldn't the data channel default to the "P" or private >> >> setting? As of now, it defaults to clear (which is the specified >> behavior >> >> in RFC 2228). >> >> >> >> I have FTP clients that are connecting over implicit SSL without issuing >> >> the PROT command. When they go to transfer a file, FtpServer sets up a >> >> plain socket for the data channel instead of an SSL one and the transfer >> >> never completes. >> >> >> >> Would it be appropriate for the ServerDataConnectionFactory to have the >> >> "secure" property set to true by default if the session is using >> implicit >> >> SSL? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Kevin Conaway >> >> >> > >> >
