Security policy rule - allowing a specific host access to ftp.sophos.com

[rchung54]

Hello,

A colleague needs to access ftp.sophos.com (195.171.192.29) using Filezilla as their SFTP client, via TCP port 990. I set up the security policy rule as follows:

They could not log onto the ftp.sophos.com site. The password credentials they used are correct. Is the rule set up correctly? On a Cisco ASA I would have used the following ACL:

access-list aclinside extended permit tcp any host 195.171.192.29 eq 990

Any advice is much appreciated.

Regards,

Roberto

[rchung54]

Hi DPoppleton,

I set the Transfer Settings to Active in the FTP client (I guess this what you meant), but still not working. I did what Rikkert_Kooy suggested too and still no joy. Is it because the Palo is not configured with SSL decrypt/encrypt?

Thanks.

[Rikkert_Kooy]

Hi rchung54,

decrypting ssl traffic is not strictly needed to make this connection possible. I have configured passive ftp with explicit ssl in this way before.

I see that your rule is being hit for the passive connection on port 50661 (your filezilla screenshot shows that the client is trying to connect to 195.171.192.29:50661 (197*156+227)), but your ftp client either says the connection has timed out or that the server denied the connection (were the three error messages at the same time?).

What does your Palo alto say is the reason for the session end reason? 

[rchung54]

Hi Rikkert_Kooy,

Yes, i saw the three error messages at the same time on the Filezilla client.

The Session End Reason is 'tcp-rst-from-server'. 

What does it mean where it says 'incomplete' under Application please?

Thanks.

[Rikkert_Kooy]

incomplete means not enough packets have gone through the Palo Alto for it to recognise the application. So it doesn't know yet whether it is SSL (which the rule allows) or something else.

If I read the session end reason it seems like the ftp.sophos.com causes the disconnect, but likely because the client was trying to connect to it for 20 seconds.

Why your FTP client wasn't able to actually connect to the server in passive mode I do not understand.