Subject: Virtual hosting with wu-ftpd...

From: Dalvenjah FoxFire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:38:33 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all,

I've got wu-ftpd-2.4.2-beta-12 with the virtual host patch installed. I'm
trying to understand it, and it appears that all the virtual host patch
does is to find out from the socket which ip it was passed via inetd. It
doesn't do a bind or anything - all it uses this info for is for logging
and to find out to which tree it should chroot if anonymous.

Am I correct in this line of thinking?

What we want to be able to do is to have anonymous ftp available on a single
virtual host, and to refuse (or otherwise deny) ftp connections to other
virtual addresses (and the real address) of the machine.

Judging from what I can tell from the source, it would be best to implement
this by way of a virtual-hosting inetd, or perhaps with the extensions to
tcpwrappers.

Am I missing something obvious here? I just want to find out if my line of
thinking is correct, and that there's not a better solution that I haven't
thought of.

Thanks,

-dalvenjah
-- 
 Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) "Never mess with a dragon, for you are
 Founder, the DALnet IRC Network       crunchy, and taste good with ketchup."
 
 e-mail: [email-masked]             WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/
 whois: SN90                           Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/

---

From: Kent Landfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:30:14 -0500 (CDT)

# I've got wu-ftpd-2.4.2-beta-12 with the virtual host patch installed. I'm
# trying to understand it, and it appears that all the virtual host patch
# does is to find out from the socket which ip it was passed via inetd. It
# doesn't do a bind or anything - all it uses this info for is for logging
# and to find out to which tree it should chroot if anonymous.
# 
# Am I correct in this line of thinking?

With the current implementation included in the wu-ftpd beta, yes.

# What we want to be able to do is to have anonymous ftp available on a single
# virtual host, and to refuse (or otherwise deny) ftp connections to other
# virtual addresses (and the real address) of the machine.
# 
# Judging from what I can tell from the source, it would be best to implement
# this by way of a virtual-hosting inetd, or perhaps with the extensions to
# tcpwrappers.
# 
# Am I missing something obvious here? I just want to find out if my line of
# thinking is correct, and that there's not a better solution that I haven't
# thought of.

There is an alternative (and IMHO better) method vor supporting Virtual Hosting
that is currently undergoing testing at multiple sites. This version allows you
to specify complete individual ftpaccess files for each of the virtual domains.
This means you can now support 'deny', 'limit', 'class' etc. for each virtual 
domain. This should do what you are looking for.

For more information on the details take a look at

    http://www.landfield.com/wu-ftpd/newvirt/newvirt.html

It's also available from the Resource Center on the Developers Corner page.

-- 
Kent Landfield                        Phone: 1-817-545-2502             
The Landfield Group                   FAX:   1-817-545-7650             
Email: [email-masked]             http://www.landfield.com/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to [email-masked].
Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/