FTP Windows 7 to VMS

[Richard Maher]

Hi all,

Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?

XP is fine, W2K is fine, but VMS times out trying to connect back to the
W7 high socket. Yes I do have Windows Firewall on and have turned off
every rule that says FTP but still no joy.

Turn off the firewall altogether?

This is a local router vanilla connection and again W2K and XP are fine.

Cheers Richard Maher

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2013-05-13 10:44:46 +0000, Richard Maher said:

> but what the hell do I have to turn off to get command line
> (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?

<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2754804> seens potentially applicable,
and for more general info
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd421710(v=WS.10).aspx>
Or patch VMS and TCP/IP Services to current and use an sftp client such
as FileZilla, which avoids this particular ftp firewall mess.



--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-05-13, Richard Maher <maher_rj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>

If you have to use FTP instead of SFTP have you tried using passive mode ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Richard Maher]

On 5/13/2013 9:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, Richard Maher <maher_rj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
>> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>>
>
> If you have to use FTP instead of SFTP have you tried using passive mode ?
>
> Simon.
>

Yes. quote PASV makes no difference.

[Richard Maher]

Thanks I'll try the hotfix.

I tried FireFTP but ir barfed at VMS directories so I thought Filezilla
would be the same.

[Richard Whalen]

On May 13, 9:34 am, Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAML...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/13/2013 9:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>

> > On 2013-05-13, Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAML...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
> >> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>
> > If you have to use FTP instead of SFTP have you tried using passive mode ?
>
> > Simon.
>
> Yes. quote PASV makes no difference.

I'm not certain about Windows 7, but other versions of Windows haven't
supported PASV mode.

I know it can work, as I've used it without any challenges. Since I
didn't have to do anything to make it work, I don't have any
suggestions for your problem.

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2013-05-13 13:37:32 +0000, Richard Maher said:

> I tried FireFTP but ir barfed at VMS directories so I thought Filezilla
> would be the same.

FileZilla used to work with VMS, or it did back when I was still
dealing with the Windows platform.

[BillPedersen]

Is the W7 box set up so it thinks you are on a "private" network?

Works fine in my configurations, both Home edition and Pro edition W7 to VMS 8.4, both local to my network and remote sites as well.

Firewall is enabled.

No special rules for FTP or "File Transfer Program".

There is a rule in the Monitoring section for File Transfer Program on a private network to allow inbound connections, but I would generally not expect that to come into play here.

[Steven Schweda]

As usual, "doesn't work" says approximately nothing about
what you did, or what happened when you did it, or which
version of what is running on your VMS system.

> > If you have to use FTP instead of SFTP have you tried using
> > passive mode ?
>

> Yes. quote PASV makes no difference.

"quote PASV" would tell the _server_ to use passive mode,
but it would _not_ tell the _client_ to use passive mode, so
I would not expect this to work anywhere, even if passive
mode did work (when enabled properly). (Or disabled, if it's
the default mode for this client program.) With my weak
psychic powers, and no detailed info on the actual FTP
command/response traffic ("debug"?), it's hard to guess what
might be happening.

> Thanks I'll try the hotfix.

It sounded plausible to me.

> I tried FireFTP but ir barfed at VMS directories so I thought
> Filezilla would be the same.

Interesting logic (or lack thereof). So far as I know,
Filezilla does not handle VMS versions in a helpful way, but
otherwise it seems to work with a TCPIP FTP server. (Many
other FTP clients work well enough with non-TCPIP FTP servers
on VMS.)

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-05-13, Richard Maher <maher_rj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 9:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2013-05-13, Richard Maher <maher_rj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
>>> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>>>
>>
>> If you have to use FTP instead of SFTP have you tried using passive mode ?
>>
>

> Yes. quote PASV makes no difference.

You cannot set passive mode on the FTP server in isolation. Use the passive
command in the FTP client to control the use of passive mode in the client
and on the FTP server.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-05-13, Richard Whalen <rvwh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not certain about Windows 7, but other versions of Windows haven't
> supported PASV mode.
>

Interesting; I didn't know that. The FTP clients I normally use all
support passive mode; whenever I have to use the Windows standard FTP
client the normal FTP active mode works ok for me, so I've never tried
switching modes with it.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <kmqqar$r5h$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Maher <maher_rj...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I tried FireFTP but ir barfed at VMS directories so I thought Filezilla
> would be the same.

I've had no trouble using Filezilla with VMS for many years, now.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, Richard Whalen <rvwh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'm not certain about Windows 7, but other versions of Windows haven't
>> supported PASV mode.

> Interesting; I didn't know that. The FTP clients I normally use all
> support passive mode; whenever I have to use the Windows standard FTP
> client the normal FTP active mode works ok for me, so I've never tried
> switching modes with it.

Otherwise, there is wget, available for windows, which supports
passive. I believe also wput, though I haven't used it.

-- glen

[VAXman-]

Dump WEENDOZE. Buy a Mac or run Linux! :)

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[Richard Maher]

On 5/13/2013 10:07 PM, BillPedersen wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:44:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
>>
>> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>>
>>
>>
>> XP is fine, W2K is fine, but VMS times out trying to connect back to the
>>
>> W7 high socket. Yes I do have Windows Firewall on and have turned off
>>
>> every rule that says FTP but still no joy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Turn off the firewall altogether?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a local router vanilla connection and again W2K and XP are fine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers Richard Maher
>
> Is the W7 box set up so it thinks you are on a "private" network?

That looks like the problem. It thinks it's a public network. How do I
convince it otherwise?

>
> Works fine in my configurations, both Home edition and Pro edition W7 to VMS 8.4,

>both local to my network and remote sites as well.
>
> Firewall is enabled.

If I turn off the firewall altogether then it works.

>
> No special rules for FTP or "File Transfer Program".
>
> There is a rule in the Monitoring section for File Transfer Program on a\

> private network to allow inbound connections, but I would generally not

> expect that to come into play here.
>

Here are the commands: -

c:\Tier3Dev>ftp 192.168.1.123
Connected to 192.168.1.123.
220 rx2600.a.b.com FTP Server (Version 5.6) Ready.
User (192.168.1.123:(none)): bigboy
331 Username badboy requires a Password
Password:
230 User logged in.
ftp> type image
200 TYPE set to IMAGE.
ftp> put tier3Client.jar
200 PORT command successful.
425-Can't build data connection for 192.168.1.9,53004
425 device timeout
ftp> quit
221 Goodbye.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Richard Maher wrote 2013-05-20 12:54:
> On 5/13/2013 10:07 PM, BillPedersen wrote:
>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:44:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the Windows(ish) question but what the hell do I have to turn
>>>
>>> off to get command line (out-of-the-box) FTP to work PUTing files to VMS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> XP is fine, W2K is fine, but VMS times out trying to connect back to the
>>>
>>> W7 high socket. Yes I do have Windows Firewall on and have turned off
>>>
>>> every rule that says FTP but still no joy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Turn off the firewall altogether?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a local router vanilla connection and again W2K and XP are fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers Richard Maher
>>
>> Is the W7 box set up so it thinks you are on a "private" network?
>
> That looks like the problem. It thinks it's a public network. How do I
> convince it otherwise?
>

It's setup when the connection is created inthe first place.

It can be changed in "Network and charing center" (or whatever
it is called in an englisg version).

I get the same "problem". I can not use the CLI FTP tool
in Win7 against a local VMS system if I do not shutdown the
Win7 firewall. I tried to disable the "File Transfer" iten (which
seems to run the /windows/system32/ftp.exe program) but that didn't
help.

If I change the network type from "Workplace" to "Private" *and*
make sure that the "File Transfer" rules in the firewall are
enabled (only enabled services are allowed even in "Private"
networks), it works.

Jan-Erik.

>

[David Froble]

Maybe this is sort of like teaching you to walk and chew gum at the same
time. If so, I apologize.

The "known" port for FTP is used for commands. FTP then opens another
random port for data transfer. At least this is my understanding. If
I'm wrong, well, it sure won't be the first time.

So, if VMS tries to open some random port back on the weendoze system,
and the ??security?? on the weendoze system is set up to reject such,
then FTP is going to fail.

My first suggestion, permanently turn off all that crap weendoze
??security?? s**t.

Recommendations go down hill from there. W7 lasted a week here, before
I deleted it. When someone tells me I cannot do what I want to do
because they think it's a bad idea for users in general, the
conversation comes to a quick conclusion.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Yes, the FTP client listening on some "high" port number and also sends
that port number over to the other side to start sending to.

In *passive* mode it does not. Passive mode uses the standard
(already opened) channel to transfer the data. More or less.

>
> So, if VMS tries to open some random port back on the weendoze system,...

Not random! It opens the port the FTP client on Windows has
asked it to open.

Note that this worked when the Windows firewall is configured to
accept a call according to the "File Transfer" rule. The rule
has to be enabled and it has to be configured to "accept".
Or the firewall has to be (temporarily) disabled.

I also noted that my firewall has a separat rule for
"Reflection FTP Client".

> and the ??security?? on the weendoze system is set up to reject such,
> then FTP is going to fail.
>
> My first suggestion, permanently turn off all that crap weendoze
> ??security?? s**t.

Yes, a ordinary DSL router/firewall/NAT-gateway handles most
of the security you need. If you have many Windows clients
behind your firewall, you might like some internal protection.

>
> Recommendations go down hill from there. W7 lasted a week here, before
> I deleted it. When someone tells me I cannot do what I want to do
> because they think it's a bad idea for users in general, the
> conversation comes to a quick conclusion.

But it *can* be configured, as fas as I can tell.

Jan-Erik.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
> David Froble wrote 2013-05-20 21:29:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

(snip)

>>> It's setup when the connection is created inthe first place.

(snip)

>>> I get the same "problem". I can not use the CLI FTP tool in Win7
>>> against a local VMS system if I do not shutdown the Win7 firewall. I
>>> tried to disable the "File Transfer" iten (which seems to run the
>>> /windows/system32/ftp.exe program) but that didn't help.

(snip)

>> Maybe this is sort of like teaching you to walk and chew
>> gum at the same time. If so, I apologize.

>> The "known" port for FTP is used for commands. FTP then opens another
>> random port for data transfer. At least this is my understanding. If
>> I'm wrong, well, it sure won't be the first time.

> Yes, the FTP client listening on some "high" port number and also
> sends that port number over to the other side to start sending to.

Yes. But the confusing part for firewalls is that the connection
comes from the server back to the client. That is, the first
packet of the connection is sent from the server.

> In *passive* mode it does not. Passive mode uses the standard
> (already opened) channel to transfer the data. More or less.

But, last I knew, the MS ftp client didn't support it.

But wget does, so I use that instead.

>> So, if VMS tries to open some random port back on the
>> weendoze system,...

> Not random! It opens the port the FTP client on Windows has
> asked it to open.

Well, usually the port is supplied by the OS, and, at least in
recent years it is supposed to be random. There are some attacks
that work by being able to predict the port that will be used
for a connection. Some systems would assign them, for example,
sequentially making them easy to predict.

> Note that this worked when the Windows firewall is configured to
> accept a call according to the "File Transfer" rule. The rule
> has to be enabled and it has to be configured to "accept".
> Or the firewall has to be (temporarily) disabled.

If VMS supports passive, find a client, such as wget, that
supports it. Much easier that way.

-- glen

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote 2013-05-20 22:32:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
>> David Froble wrote 2013-05-20 21:29:
>>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>>> It's setup when the connection is created inthe first place.
>
> (snip)
>>>> I get the same "problem". I can not use the CLI FTP tool in Win7
>>>> against a local VMS system if I do not shutdown the Win7 firewall. I
>>>> tried to disable the "File Transfer" iten (which seems to run the
>>>> /windows/system32/ftp.exe program) but that didn't help.
>
> (snip)
>>> Maybe this is sort of like teaching you to walk and chew
>>> gum at the same time. If so, I apologize.
>
>>> The "known" port for FTP is used for commands. FTP then opens another
>>> random port for data transfer. At least this is my understanding. If
>>> I'm wrong, well, it sure won't be the first time.
>
>> Yes, the FTP client listening on some "high" port number and also
>> sends that port number over to the other side to start sending to.
>
> Yes. But the confusing part for firewalls is that the connection
> comes from the server back to the client. That is, the first
> packet of the connection is sent from the server.

Correct, and the firewall (any firewall looking at traffic from
the server back to the client) has to pass that. And it does
work if one configures the Windows firewall to accept it.

I though that is was more or less standard to accept incomming
calls to un-priviliged ports (ports above 1023, right?).

>
>> In *passive* mode it does not. Passive mode uses the standard
>> (already opened) channel to transfer the data. More or less.
>
> But, last I knew, the MS ftp client didn't support it.
>

Correct. Forgot to mention that. Reflection FTP has a check
box for "use passive mode", and it works.

Now, I didn't investigate it fully, but there seems to be
different defaults for "File Transfer" in the Win7 firewall
between "Private Networks" and "Workplace" (and I guess
"Public Network"). But no matter what the default is, it
does look as you would be able to change it.

> But wget does, so I use that instead.
>
>>> So, if VMS tries to open some random port back on the
>>> weendoze system,...
>
>> Not random! It opens the port the FTP client on Windows has
>> asked it to open.
>
> Well, usually the port is supplied by the OS, and, at least in
> recent years it is supposed to be random. There are some attacks
> that work by being able to predict the port that will be used
> for a connection. Some systems would assign them, for example,
> sequentially making them easy to predict.

It's not random to the VMS system, it is told which port to use.
It is the client that picks a random port (or get it from the OS).
But maybe we are talking about the same thing... :-)

>
>> Note that this worked when the Windows firewall is configured to
>> accept a call according to the "File Transfer" rule. The rule
>> has to be enabled and it has to be configured to "accept".
>> Or the firewall has to be (temporarily) disabled.
>
> If VMS supports passive, find a client, such as wget, that
> supports it. Much easier that way.
>

Now, I have HGFTP on my system together with TCPIP FTP so
I might mix them up, but one of them supports passive... :-)

Regards,
Jan-Erik.


> -- glen
>

[David Froble]

How many people want to keep having to learn a new user interface? I
for one do not. XP wasn't so bad. Vista was / is just about
undescribable. The W7 user interface is not good, from my perspective.

Ok, what is that perspective? Am I just looking to use a browser, a
word processor, maybe a spreadsheet and email? No, I want to see what's
on the system, manage the system, and such. The W7 user interface was
NOT set up with me in mind.

I'm the only one here, and I have multiple weendoze systems. With
Windows 2000, I could mount a disk from another system without using a
password. XP had some problems with that. I was told that W7 just
won't allow such.

So, Ok, on the XP systems, I decided to conform. (I shouldn't have to.)
I set up a NetUser account with a password, for mounting disks on
other systems. Don't know what I screwed up, but now that won't work
either.

I guess I've just been spoiled by DECnet and FAL.

[Brad Hamilton]

On 2013-05-20, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[...]

>
> Ok, what is that perspective? Am I just looking to use a browser, a
> word processor, maybe a spreadsheet and email? No, I want to see what's
> on the system, manage the system, and such. The W7 user interface was
> NOT set up with me in mind.
>

Then don't go to Windows 8 - all the "system management" functions are
hidden from the user, and they are no different from Windows 7.

Windows 8 - the creepy candy coating surrounding Windows 7.
[...]

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:

(snip)

>>> Yes, the FTP client listening on some "high" port number and also
>>> sends that port number over to the other side to start sending to.

>> Yes. But the confusing part for firewalls is that the connection
>> comes from the server back to the client. That is, the first
>> packet of the connection is sent from the server.

> Correct, and the firewall (any firewall looking at traffic from
> the server back to the client) has to pass that. And it does
> work if one configures the Windows firewall to accept it.

> I though that is was more or less standard to accept incomming
> calls to un-priviliged ports (ports above 1023, right?).

I don't know about that, but if you have a NAT router in the
path, then it will have no idea where to send the data.

However, as with the firewall, many NAT routers special case the
ftp connection, extract the port numbers, and allow it through.

-- glen

[Paul Sture]

In article <slrnkplbm...@coyote.earwicker.org>,

Brad Hamilton <br...@coyote.earwicker.home> wrote:

> On 2013-05-20, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Ok, what is that perspective? Am I just looking to use a browser, a
> > word processor, maybe a spreadsheet and email? No, I want to see what's
> > on the system, manage the system, and such. The W7 user interface was
> > NOT set up with me in mind.
> >
>
> Then don't go to Windows 8 - all the "system management" functions are
> hidden from the user, and they are no different from Windows 7.

Classic Shell displays those (albeit for me the Classic Shell top level
menu items come out in German, while the rest is in English).

> Windows 8 - the creepy candy coating surrounding Windows 7.
> [...]

Rumour has it that Windows 8.1 will regain the start button and be a
free upgrade.

--
Paul Sture

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-08, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
>
> Rumour has it that Windows 8.1 will regain the start button and be a
> free upgrade.
>

Start button does not equal start menu. :-)

Read _carefully_ what Microsoft are saying they will provide in 8.1...

[Paul Sture]

In article <kourin$qha$2...@dont-email.me>,

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

> On 2013-06-08, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Rumour has it that Windows 8.1 will regain the start button and be a
> > free upgrade.
> >
>
> Start button does not equal start menu. :-)
>
> Read _carefully_ what Microsoft are saying they will provide in 8.1...

I'm sceptical about the "free upgrade" part as well :-)

--
Paul Sture