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?
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.
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.
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.
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!