FileZilla Forums

botg wrote:

xeon wrote:I actually wouldn't be surprised at all. I know for a fact that most of the hosting companies you've listed are inept. In fact, most hosting companies in existence are inept at what they do.

You also have to take into account that most hosting companies use outdated Linux distributions like RHEL/CentOS. Very rarely does RedHat backport any meaningful bug or security fixes, they fail just as much as the hosting companies using them.

My guess is that they all use some off-the-shelf enterprise hosting platform, with a different skin to make it look like their own. Most of them probably are just resellers anyhow.

Typical pretentious programmers/IT people. You're better than everyone else. Nobody else knows what they are talking about. Everyone else is inept. Seriously, give it a rest. Rackspace has close to 6,000 employees and data centers in four countries. Liquidweb is highly resepcted and has three of its own data centers in Michigan and one in Arizona. Softlayer is owned by IBM, again with multiple data centers in Texas and elsewhere. These guys aren't some fly by night resellers that don't know what they are talking about. My Liquidweb server has been tested and works, but the Filezilla update doesn't work for me locally. Why is that?

Who thought it would be a good idea to change your default FTP protocol to something that wouldn't work on 99% of the world's servers and/or default settings that won't work for anyone out of the box locally? That would be inept.

Seriously, give it a rest. Rackspace has close to 6,000 employees and data centers in four countries. Liquidweb is highly resepcted and has three of its own data centers in Michigan and one in Arizona. Softlayer is owned by IBM, again with multiple data centers in Texas and elsewhere.

That's great. Should be quick and easy to fix the server then.

My Liquidweb server has been tested and works, but the Filezilla update doesn't work for me locally. Why is that?

Did you test using https://ftptest.net/ that it indeed supports explicit FTP over TLS?

botg wrote:

My Liquidweb server has been tested and works, but the Filezilla update doesn't work for me locally. Why is that?

Did you test using https://ftptest.net/ that it indeed supports explicit FTP over TLS?

Yes, I have, with the same results. Connection times out and the directory can't be listed.

Status: Resolving address of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com
Status: Connecting to 50.28.18.100
Warning: The entered address does not resolve to an IPv6 address.
Status: Connected, waiting for welcome message...
Reply: 220---------- Welcome to Pure-FTPd [privsep] [TLS] ----------
Reply: 220-You are user number 2 of 50 allowed.
Reply: 220-Local time is now 11:27. Server port: 21.
Reply: 220-This is a private system - No anonymous login
Reply: 220 You will be disconnected after 15 minutes of inactivity.
Command: CLNT https://ftptest.net on behalf of 88.23.55.105
Reply: 530 You aren't logged in
Command: AUTH TLS
Reply: 234 AUTH TLS OK.
Status: Performing TLS handshake...
Status: TLS handshake successful, verifying certificate...
Command: USER XXXXXXXX
Reply: 331 User XXXXXXXX OK. Password required
Command: PASS ********************
Reply: 230 OK. Current restricted directory is /
Command: SYST
Reply: 215 UNIX Type: L8
Command: FEAT
Reply: 211-Extensions supported:
Reply: EPRT
Reply: IDLE
Reply: MDTM
Reply: SIZE
Reply: MFMT
Reply: REST STREAM
Reply: MLST type*;size*;sizd*;modify*;UNIX.mode*;UNIX.uid*;UNIX.gid*;unique*;
Reply: MLSD
Reply: AUTH TLS
Reply: PBSZ
Reply: PROT
Reply: TVFS
Reply: ESTA
Reply: PASV
Reply: EPSV
Reply: SPSV
Reply: ESTP
Reply: 211 End.
Command: PBSZ 0
Reply: 200 PBSZ=0
Command: PROT P
Reply: 200 Data protection level set to "private"
Command: PWD
Reply: 257 "/" is your current location
Status: Current path is /
Command: TYPE I
Reply: 200 TYPE is now 8-bit binary
Command: PASV
Reply: 227 Entering Passive Mode (50,28,18,100,154,179)
Command: MLSD
Error: Connection timed out

This is the test Liquidweb did that was succesful...

Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message...
Response: 220---------- Welcome to Pure-FTPd [privsep] [TLS] ----------
Response: 220-You are user number 1 of 50 allowed.
Response: 220-Local time is now 00:05. Server port: 21.
Response: 220-This is a private system - No anonymous login
Response: 220 You will be disconnected after 15 minutes of inactivity.
Command: AUTH TLS
Response: 234 AUTH TLS OK.
Status: Initializing TLS...
Status: Verifying certificate...
Command: USER XXXXXXXX
Status: TLS/SSL connection established.
Response: 331 User XXXXXXXX OK. Password required
Command: PASS ********************
Response: 230 OK. Current restricted directory is /
Command: SYST
Response: 215 UNIX Type: L8
Command: FEAT
Response: 211-Extensions supported:
Response: EPRT
Response: IDLE
Response: MDTM
Response: SIZE
Response: MFMT
Response: REST STREAM
Response: MLST type*;size*;sizd*;modify*;UNIX.mode*;UNIX.uid*;UNIX.gid*;unique*;
Response: MLSD
Response: AUTH TLS
Response: PBSZ
Response: PROT
Response: TVFS
Response: ESTA
Response: PASV
Response: EPSV
Response: SPSV
Response: ESTP
Response: 211 End.
Status: Server does not support non-ASCII characters.
Command: PBSZ 0
Response: 200 PBSZ=0
Command: PROT P
Response: 200 Data protection level set to "private"
Status: Connected
Status: Retrieving directory listing...
Command: PWD
Response: 257 "/" is your current location
Command: TYPE I
Response: 200 TYPE is now 8-bit binary
Command: PASV
Response: 227 Entering Passive Mode (50,28,18,100,11,251)
Command: MLSD
Response: 150 Accepted data connection
Response: 226-Options: -a -l
Response: 226 30 matches total
Status: Directory listing successful

Fatbat wrote:Welcome to Pure-FTPd

Sounds like you've found the problem.

xeon wrote:

Fatbat wrote:Welcome to Pure-FTPd

Sounds like you've found the problem.

Just the fact that it's Pure-FTPd isn't the problem.

OK, so what is the problem?

Which version of FileZilla was the second log (the working one) generated with?

botg wrote:Which version of FileZilla was the second log (the working one) generated with?

Does it matter which FTP application was used to show that TLS is functioning on the server? Is FTPTest.net using Filezilla? It says Pure FTPd too?

Fatbat wrote:Does it matter which FTP application was used to show that TLS is functioning on the server?

Absolutely, if your claim is that it's a bug in FileZilla.

Is FTPTest.net using Filezilla?

No. It's a completely independent FTP implementation. It even uses GnuTLS in a different way than FileZilla.



Let me summarize the known facts:

• Explicit FTP over TLS fails using the latest version of FileZilla from a location that is outside the hoster's network
• Explicit FTP over TLS fails from https://ftptest.net//, it too is located outside your hoster's network
• There is a log from an older, unknown version of FileZilla (or another software using exactly the same status messages) done by the hosting company showing successful FTP over TLS. It is unknown where this has been tested from.
• The server is behind a firewall, as connection attempts to random ports time out instead of the server telling us that the ports are closed
• FileZilla and ftptest.net use different FTP implementations

I think that the server's firewall blocks the data connection and that the successful test done by the hosting company has been done from another machine behind the firewall.

botg wrote:

Fatbat wrote:Does it matter which FTP application was used to show that TLS is functioning on the server?

Absolutely, if your claim is that it's a bug in FileZilla.

Is FTPTest.net using Filezilla?

No. It's a completely independent FTP implementation. It even uses GnuTLS in a different way than FileZilla.



Let me summarize the known facts:

• Explicit FTP over TLS fails using the latest version of FileZilla from a location that is outside the hoster's network
• Explicit FTP over TLS fails from https://ftptest.net//, it too is located outside your hoster's network
• There is a log from an older, unknown version of FileZilla (or another software using exactly the same status messages) done by the hosting company showing successful FTP over TLS. It is unknown where this has been tested from.
• The server is behind a firewall, as connection attempts to random ports time out instead of the server telling us that the ports are closed
• FileZilla and ftptest.net use different FTP implementations

I think that the server's firewall blocks the data connection and that the successful test done by the hosting company has been done from another machine behind the firewall.

Thanks for the more detailed reply. I will pass this on to Liquidweb to see what they have to say about it all.

I am also unable to use the latest version of Filezilla to ftp to certain servers. The error message I get is
Status: Connecting to 91.238.163.3:21...
Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message...
Status: Initializing TLS...
Status: Verifying certificate...
Status: TLS connection established.
Status: Server does not support non-ASCII characters.
Status: Connected
Status: Retrieving directory listing...
Command: PWD
Response: 257 "/" is your current location
Command: TYPE I
Response: 200 TYPE is now 8-bit binary
Command: PASV
Response: 227 Entering Passive Mode (91,238,163,3,130,74)
Command: MLSD
Error: Connection timed out
Error: Failed to retrieve directory listing

What can I do to get this to work or where can I obtain a safe earlier version to go back to?

Chrissy67 wrote:What can I do to get this to work or where can I obtain a safe earlier version to go back to?

Did you read this thread? According to the folks here you need to speak to your hosting company, as every server in the world is incorrectly configured. Beyond that I posted the link to 3.9.0.6.

Guys - this is pretty naff - I just updated to the latest version of Filezilla and now connecting over TLS fails on a number of my client's servers.

WORKAROUND: Use plain FTP

Not ideal at all - I'd far rather username/password/file transfers were encrypted. How can it work before and not now? How can you be blaming all the server configurations out there? How can you not see that users don't care? We will just move to a different FTP program that doesn't complain about poor server configuration.

Can you please provide a rollback option so I can undo the latest update and go back to the previous version?

davehilditch wrote:Guys - this is pretty naff - I just updated to the latest version of Filezilla and now connecting over TLS fails on a number of my client's servers.

WORKAROUND: Use plain FTP

Not ideal at all - I'd far rather username/password/file transfers were encrypted. How can it work before and not now? How can you be blaming all the server configurations out there? How can you not see that users don't care? We will just move to a different FTP program that doesn't complain about poor server configuration.

Can you please provide a rollback option so I can undo the latest update and go back to the previous version?

You don't need to roll anything back. Just uninstall it and reinstall the previous version, link to which is above in one of my previous posts.

Alright. Liquidweb came back to me with "the passive port range was not properly set in the ftp config".

After that, everything worked again as expected. I now need to track down this issue with another 2 or 3 hosts.

The only one that has worked for me so far is Media Temple.

What a pain in the ass.