# vsftpd vs pureftpd

## xedx

 :Very Happy: 

hi guys

just need help with choosing between vsftpd and pureftpd

they both work for me with virtual hosts, virtual users. etc.

but im sure there are certain differences that I may have

missed.

Any insights, comments, rants etc.?

thanks!

----------

## chrysalis

Try both and see by yourself which one you like the most.

Both use exactly the same security tricks (privilege separation, capabilities) and the same Linux optimizations (sendfile).

Both are used by large sites (vsftpd : redhat, suse de... - pureftpd : sgi, linksys, at&t, sunsite, suse cz...).

Both have the same anti-dos features (per-ip concurrency limits, throtting of recursive listings).

Pure-FTPd is more featureful, especially regarding virtual users and chroot (links can optionally be followed outside chroot).

VsFTPd is very small, and will eat less memory if you have a lot of sessions.

So... just chose your flavor.

----------

## alec

I'll weigh in and say that I've had no problems with PureFTPd in a long time - it's great.

----------

## mjerom

i just emerged pure ftp.

it's working fine and the daemon is starting at boot time

but i have to enable the virtual user access with the root account

by  entering this cmd :

# /usr/sbin/pure-ftpd &

would it be possible to automate that ?????

----------

## chrysalis

rc-update add pure-ftpd default

----------

## mjerom

no this enable pure-ftpd

but not the virtual users.....

at boot time i can see pure-ftpd starting [ok]

but i still have to enable virtual users with the root account.

----------

## chrysalis

edit /etc/conf.d/pure-ftpd

----------

## puggy

Think outside the box... go for proftpd.  :Very Happy: 

Stupidly easy to configure. Works really well.

Puggy

----------

## ARC2300

Any suggestions for an FTP server that's easy to configure when it sits behind a router/NAT/firewall??  

I've got a D-Link DI-704, and I tried installing Pure-FTPD, and I could connect inside the network just fine, but anyone on the other side of the router had problems.  At one point I got it to connect for me by using my external IP, but other users couldn't connect.

And I should mention, I use a non-standard FTP port (as I've found the port I use doesn't get too many hackers trying it).

----------

## chrysalis

This problem is independant of the server. The FTP protocol itself is difficult to pass through a NAT box.

First, run pure-ftpd with the -P <ip address of your router> flag.

It will tell remote clients the right address and not the internal address of your server.

Then, you need to forward a bunch of ports. The FTP protocol picks random ports from a range (by default 1024-65535, but you can change this in pure-ftpd with the -p <first port>:<last port> switch) . So you must configure your router to forward all these ports to your internal FTP server.

If forwarding ports is something you really don't want to do, you can always use the -N switch in pure-ftpd that forces usage of the "active" mode. Some clients will choke, though.

There are also some infos about this in the FAQ : http://pureftpd.org/FAQ

If you need additonnal help, feel free to join the mailing-list.

----------

## puggy

 *chrysalis wrote:*   

> This problem is independant of the server. The FTP protocol itself is difficult to pass through a NAT box.
> 
> First, run pure-ftpd with the -P <ip address of your router> flag.
> 
> It will tell remote clients the right address and not the internal address of your server.
> ...

 

This is known as masquearding and passive ports repsecitvely.  :Very Happy: 

Puggy

----------

## rwallace

I had the same question as above about setting up an ftp server behind a NATed firewall.  Check the proftpd site.  There is a good section on exactly how to set this up with proftpd (http://proftpd.linux.co.uk/localsite/Userguide/linked/config-nat.html).

----------

