Atomicorp

gaia wrote:i tried with smartftp and coreftp. both reported permissions in the before format, so that is surely a client rendering issue. all good here. BUT smartftp, which does allow seeing owners/groups, only showed numbers, like in the after screenshot. i can understand the client translating flcdmpe into rwx-rw-r etc, but doesnt the owner/group ID NEED to be attached to their respective names by the server somehow?

in short: would you please name the FTP client (or setting in an available client) that will show owners/groups as names, not IDs.

thanks!

issue still unresolved. if i am barking at the wrong door please advise

ncftp shows usernames and not just IDs.

mikeshinn wrote:ncftp shows usernames and not just IDs.

so does the default version of proftpd shipped with plesk.

ncftp is a client.

The ART version of psa-proftp shows usernames:

[root@www3 xinetd.d]# rpm -qa | grep proftp
psa-proftpd-1.3.3-2.el5.art
psa-proftpd-xinetd-1.3.1-cos5.build86080722.00

[root@www3 xinetd.d]# ftp localhost
Connected to localhost.localdomain.
220 ProFTPD 1.3.3 Server (ProFTPD) [127.0.0.1]
500 AUTH not understood
500 AUTH not understood
KERBEROS_V4 rejected as an authentication type
Name (localhost:root): foobar
331 Password required for foobar
Password:
230 User foobar logged in
Remote system type is UNIX.
Using binary mode to transfer files.
ftp> ls
227 Entering Passive Mode (127,0,0,1,169,185).
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for file list
-rw------- 1 foobar foobar 390588 Apr 21 13:02 testfile

So if you arent seeing usernames, something else is going on with your client. (And this is a on a Plesk 9.5 system BTW)

indeed, via ncftp i can see the names. now at least i know where to go (filezilla forum)

thank you michael. have a good weekend.

My pleasure. Its sound like some clients dont know to access the passwd file to show the usernames associated with the uid.

Slightly out of the scope, but every client I've tried with scponly (WinSCP, Filezilla, etc) will show you usernames as well (and they're more secure since they're using SSH).

Highland wrote:Slightly out of the scope, but every client I've tried with scponly (WinSCP, Filezilla, etc) will show you usernames as well (and they're more secure since they're using SSH).

latest filezilla via SSL does not.

scponly uses SSH. This is not the same as FTP over SSL. Filezilla 3.2.2.1 definitely does report usernames when using scponly instead of FTP.

I have read various topics on the issue of user/group names instead of id's and came to following:

Filezilla sents first a FEAT command. psa-proftpd responds with a.o. that it supports:
"MLST modify*;perm*;size*;type*;unique*;UNIX.group*;UNIX.mode*;UNIX.owner*;"

Based on this Filezilla uses the MLSD command for file/directory listing. Looking at the raw output from psa-proftpd it contains the user/group id's not the names.

In previous versions Filezilla did not use the MLS* commands but used the LIST command instead for directory/file lsiting. This forced psa-proftpd to generate the user/groupname.

To test:
If one login with Filezilla with the ssh/sftp protocol (root account) one will see the user/groupname as this protocol uses the ls command

Another test:
Login using Smartftp Pro - you see the user/groupid. When you turn off the use of the MLSD command in SmartFtp one will see the user/groupname.

To make a long storry short: FileZilla seems to have implemented the ftp protocol correctly. It is psa-proftpd which responds differetly on the LIST and the MLSD commands.
I would be interested to learn how this can be changed (if so) in the psa-proftpd configuration

gvhoofst wrote:To make a long storry short: FileZilla seems to have implemented the ftp protocol correctly. It is psa-proftpd which responds differetly on the LIST and the MLSD commands.
I would be interested to learn how this can be changed (if so) in the psa-proftpd configuration

thanks gvhoofst. Your conclusion does not surprise me, as the developer of filezilla is known to be adamant about sticking to the RFCs, even when he is aware that it will cause his software to behave undesirably in real world conditions.

IMHO he is doing the right thing, especially because filezilla is so widely used that it might actually push others to adhere to the RFCs.