Bug 59997

Summary: Hampton: FTP service doesn't work
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Danny Trinh <danny_trinh>
Component: wu-ftpdAssignee: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3CC: afom_m, clay_cooper, dale_kaisner, danny_trinh, dean_oliver, gary_lerhaupt, john_hull, joshua_giles, matt_domsch, michael_e_brown, robert_hentosh, rogelio_noriega
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-02-18 19:48:54 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Danny Trinh 2002-02-18 19:29:24 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)

Description of problem:
After edit /etc/xinetd.d/wu-ftpd file to enable ftp service, and restart xinetd 
service, I cannot connect to server through either ftp localhost or ncftp 
localhost.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install Hampton, edit /etc/xinetd.d/wu-ftpd, and then restart xinetd service
2.Use: "ftp localhost" or "ncftp local host" to connect to localserver.
3.
	

Actual Results:  Ftp doesn't work and have an error: "530 TLS subsystem failed".


Expected Results:  Must be able to use ftp service (FTP server)

Additional info:
Comment 1 Danny Trinh 2002-02-18 19:48:48 UTC 
I try vsftpd by editing /etc/xinetd.d/vsftpd, then ftp service works. If RH no 
longer use wu-ftpd, please remove it off the CD. This will reduce the 
confusion.
Comment 2 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2002-02-18 20:14:06 UTC 
If the plans don't change, both will be included and working in the final. 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 56266 ***
Comment 3 John A. Hull 2002-02-18 20:30:53 UTC 
Why is this a duplicate of 56266?