Passive FTP

Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Passive FTP

Not applicable


Is there any trick to allow passive FTP inbound?

I have set a security rule to allow APPLICATION-FTP inbound, and a NAT rule to let Port 21 inbound. Works fine for ACTIVE, but PASSIVE fails at the LIST command.

Help would be appreciated.




Accepted Solutions

Reverting to the 243 content release will fix the issue.

The 244 content has been pulled and the content team is currently working on a fix.


View solution in original post


L3 Networker

Application FTP covers both activ and passive ftp, unless you have it set for application default on the policy there should be no reason for us to drop this traffic.

We may need to take a closer look at your policy.

I am confused - so we should *not* set our FTP policy for application-default?

We are having the same issues - our outbound FTP (using the ftp application and application-default service) will only allow active mode FTP. Yet oddly, out inbound FTP rule using the same configuration is working for both PASV and active mode.


It is possible you are running into an issue we recently uncovered with NAT when a client and server both support FTP extensions and use EPSV/EPRT instead of the normal PASV/PORT commands for active connections. This is being addressed and should be fixed in an upcoming content release. If either the client or the server do not advertise support for those extensions, everything will work fine through NAT.


Thanks - so what would be the work-around in the meantime?

Specifically, we have users who use IE/Windows Explorer as their FTP client to transfer files to and from our internal server in the DMZ. They have always had the "Use Passive" options checked which worked until we moved to the PA firewalls. Now it does not work.

The same FTP server (using an identical security rule) performs fine externally using PASV mode.

The only difference, as you mentioned, is the NAT rule: from the trust zone it uses a dynamic ip-and-port source translation, and from untrust it uses destination translation on TCP 21.

Is there anything we can do on the firewall to work around this issue?

If we roll back from the threat updates dated 5/3, is that a temporary workaround? Been on hold for 15 minutes, trying to talk somebody about this.

Reverting to the 243 content release will fix the issue.

The 244 content has been pulled and the content team is currently working on a fix.


Hmm, but we never ran on this version of content updates on our firewalls. Panorama did download and apply it locally, but the firewalls aren't set to auto-apply.

And I just saw the retraction accouncement posted here - is there any way to subscribe to these?


currently you have two options:

1. subscribe to the PA Networks Support Team Twitter feed: pantwks_support

2. keep an eye on the top page of our Knowledge Point site for important announcements

We are working on enhancing this further to improve customer visibility on important issues.


Not applicable

Yes, we are having the same issue with passive FTP. Traffic is getting blocked by the implicit deny rule I have in place, probably because NAT is messing with the connection. I was able to get around temporarily by permitting all port from our source IP to the specific remote IP. This was temporary from one of our critical transfer. I just reverted back to Content Update 243 and am waiting for our sysadmin to test again.

Rolled back to 243 and all works well now.

Perfect - thanks.

This finally gives me a reason to even consider looking at Twitter Smiley Happy

bpappas wrote:

Reverting to the 243 content release will fix the issue.

The 244 content has been pulled and the content team is currently working on a fix.


Don't these things get tested before release? Especially when it's a modified decoder?

This had a massive impact on my company's business until I traced the issues to the time the update was applied and rolled back tot he previous version. I'm not imrpessed - especially given how much subscribing to updates for this service costs!

Feature Request - could the Threat Content and App Content be seperated into 2 packages?  I want to get Threat Content as it becomes available - but seeing how there have been a few instances where decoder updates have affected business related activities - would like to hold off on App updates until they have had more wide-spread acceptance.  Thank you.



Content update 245-965 has resolved our FTP issue.  Thanks for quickly getting us the fix!

Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.

The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!

These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!