Your IP : 3.143.110.165
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>ProFTPD: AWS</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor=white>
<hr>
<center><h2><b>AWS and ProFTPD</b></h2></center>
<hr>
<p>
So you want to run ProFTPD on an AWS
<a href="https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/">EC2</a> instance? Due to FTP's nature as
a multi-connection protocol, it is not as straightforward to use FTP within AWS
EC2, but it <b>can be done</b>. Read on to find out how. <i>Note</i> that the
following documentation assumes that you know how to install and configure
ProFTPD already.
If you are only running individual FTP servers, then the sections on
<a href="#SGS">AWS security groups</a> and <a href="#Addresses">addresses</a>
are relevant. If you want to provide a "scalable" <em>pool/cluster</em> of
FTP servers, then the <a href="#ELBs">AWS Elastic Load Balancing</a> and
<a href="#Route53">AWS Route53</a> sections will also be of interest.
<p><a name="SGs">
<b>Security Groups</b><br>
Every EC2 instance belongs to one or more AWS <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/using-network-security.html">Security Groups</a>
(often abbreviated as simply "SGs"). As the AWS documentation states, a
"security group" is a effectively a set of firewall rules controlling network
access to your EC2 instance. I tend to think of SGs more like NAT rules,
since the "firewall" is the EC2 network perimeter managed by Amazon, and
an SG dictates what holes to allow from the outside world into the EC2 internal
networks.
<p>
Clients wishing to make a connection to the <code>proftpd</code> running on
your EC2 instance, be it FTP, FTPS, SFTP, or SCP, will thus need to be allowed
to connect by one (or more) of your SGs. Assuming your <code>proftpd</code>
listens on the standard FTP control port (21), you would configure one of your
SGs to allow access to that port, from any IP address, using the AWS CLI like
so:
<pre>
$ aws ec2 authorize-security-group-ingress \
--group-id <em>sg-XXXX</em> \
--protocol tcp \
--port 21 \
--cidr 0.0.0.0/0
</pre>
<b>Note</b> that you do <b>not</b> need to allow access to port 20! Many,
many sites/howtos recommend opening port 20 in addition to port 21 for FTP
access, but it <i>simply not needed</i>. For <i>active</i> data transfers
(<i>i.e.</i> where the FTP server <i>actively</i> connects back to the
client machine for the data transfer), the <i>source</i> port will be port 20.
But <i>incoming</i> connections for FTP will <b>never</b> be to port 20.
<p>
If you are allowing SFTP/SCP connections, <i>e.g.</i> to your
<code>proftpd</code>, running the <a href="http://www.proftpd.org/docs/contrib/mod_sftp.html"><code>mod_sftp</code></a> module on the standard SSH port (22):
<pre>
$ aws ec2 authorize-security-group-ingress \
--group-id <em>sg-YYYY</em> \
--protocol tcp \
--port 22 \
--cidr 0.0.0.0/0
</pre>
<b>Note</b>: I recommend using different SGs for your FTP/FTPS rules and your
SFTP/SCP rules. FTP/FTPS rules are more complex, and it is more clear to
manage an SG named "FTP", with all of the related FTP rules, and separately
to have an SG named "SFTP", with the SFTP/SCP related rules.
<p>
If you are <em>only</em> allowing SFTP/SCP access, that should suffice for
the security group configuration for your instance. Allowing FTP/FTPS
connections requires more security group tweaks.
<p>
FTP uses multiple TCP connections: one for the control connection, and separate
<em>other</em> connections for data transfers (directory listings and file
uploads/downloads). The ports used for these data connections are dynamically
negotiated over the control connection; it is this dynamic nature of the
data connections which causes complexity with network access rules. This
site does a great job of describing these issues more in detail:
<pre>
<a href="http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html">http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html</a>
</pre>
Remember how I said that SGs are similar to NAT rules? This similarity is
one of the reasons why the ProFTPD <a href="http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/NAT.html">NAT</a> howto is relevant here as well.
<p>
We want to configure ProFTPD to use a known range of ports for its passive
data transfers, and then we want to configure our FTP SG to allow access to
that known port range. Thus we would use something like this in the
<code>proftpd.conf</code>:
<pre>
PassivePorts 60000 65535
</pre>
And then, to configure the SG to allow those ports:
<pre>
$ aws ec2 authorize-security-group-ingress \
--group-id <em>sg-XXXX</em> \
--protocol tcp \
--port 60000-65534 \
--cidr 0.0.0.0/0
</pre>
The SFTP/SCP protocols only use a single TCP connection, and thus they do not
require any other special configuration/access rules.
<p><a name="Addresses">
<b>Public <i>vs</i> Private Instance Addresses</b><br>
Every EC2 instance with have its own local/private IP address and DNS name,
automatically assigned by AWS. Instances <i>may</i> also be automatically
assigned <i>public</i> IP addresses/DNS names as well, depending on various
factors. The AWS docs on <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/using-instance-addressing.html">instance addressing</a> discuss those
factors in greater detail.
<p>
If your EC2 instance will be supporting FTP/FTPS sessions, then you will need
to determine whether your instance has a public address. If so, that address
needs to be configured using the <a href="http://www.proftpd.org/docs/modules/mod_core.html#MasqueradeAddress"><code>MasqueradeAddress</code></a> directive.
Why? When an FTP client negotiates a
<a href="http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html">passive data transfer</a>,
ProFTPD tells that FTP client an address, and a port, to which to connect to
transfer the data. For EC2 instances with a public address, that public
address is what ProFTPD needs to convey to the FTP client, and the
<code>MasqueradeAddress</code> is the directive that does so.
<p>
So how can you tell what the public address of your EC2 instance is, if it
even has one? You can use the EC2 <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-instance-metadata.html">instance metadata</a>, via
<code>curl</code>, like so:
<pre>
$ curl http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/public-hostname
</pre>
<b>If</b> your instance has a public address, the DNS name to use would be
returned. Otherwise, you might see something like this:
<pre>
$ curl http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/public-hostname
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>404 - Not Found</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>404 - Not Found</h1>
</body>
</html>
</pre>
which indicates that your EC2 instances does <b>not</b> have a public address.
And if your instance does not <em>have</em> a public address, then you do
<em>not</em> need to use the <code>MasqueradeAddress</code> directive.
<p>
Here's one solution for handling this situation: obtain the public hostname
for your instance, store it in an environment variable, and then use that
environment variable in your <code>proftpd.conf</code>:
<pre>
$ export EC2_PUBLIC_HOSTNAME=`curl -f -s http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/public-hostname`
</pre>
The <code>-f</code> option is necessary, in case the instance does not
<i>have</i> a public address. The <code>-s</code> option simply makes for
quieter shell scripts. Then, in your <code>proftpd.conf</code>, you might
use:
<pre>
MasqueradeAddress %{env:EC2_PUBLIC_HOSTNAME}
</pre>
If the instance does not have a public address, though, that environment
variable will be the empty string, and <code>proftpd</code> will fail to start
up because of that. Better would be to automatically handle the
"no public address" case, if we can. Assume you have a shell script for
starting <code>proftpd</code> which does something like this, using our
<code>EC2_PUBLIC_HOSTNAME</code> environment variable:
<pre>
PROFTPD_ARGS=""
# If we have a public hostname, then the string will not be
# zero length, and we define a property for ProFTPD's use.
if [ ! -z "$EC2_PUBLIC_HOSTNAME" ]; then
PROFTPD_ARGS="$PROFTPD_ARGS -DUSE_MASQ_ADDR"
fi
</pre>
Then, in your <code>proftpd.conf</code>, you use <i>both</i> that property
<i>and</i> the environment variable notation:
<pre>
<IfDefined USE_MASQ_ADDR>
MasqueradeAddress %{env:EC2_PUBLIC_HOSTNAME}
</IfDefined>
</pre>
<p>
Fortunately the EC2 instance addressing does not require any additional
changes/tweaks to the AWS Security Groups.
<p><a name="ELBs">
<b>Elastic Load Balancing</b><br>
Now that you have ProFTPD up and running on your EC2 instance, and you can
connect using FTP/FTPS and SFTP/SCP, and browse directories and upload and
download files, you are probably thinking about how to have more than one
instance for your FTP service. After all, you want redundancy for your FTP
servers just like you have for your HTTP servers, right? And for HTTP servers,
you would use an AWS <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elastic-load-balancing.html">Elastic Load Balancer</a>
(often called an "ELB"). Why not use the same technique for FTP? <i>Can</i>
you configure an ELB for FTP?
<p>
Yes, ELBs can be used for FTP. Like SGs, though, it's complicated by FTP's
use of multiple TCP connections; for SFTP/SCP, ELBs are simpler to configure.
<p>
The first thing to keep in mind is that ELBs only distribute (<i>i.e.</i>
"balance") connections in a <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/how-elb-works.html">round-robin fashion</a> among
the backend TCP servers; they do <b>not</b> distribute connections based on the
<em>load</em> of those backend servers. (The balancing algorithm is slightly
different for HTTP servers, but that does not apply to ProFTPD.) This means
that <em>any</em> user might connect to <em>any</em> of your ProFTPD instances;
this, in turn, means that users must be able to login on all instances,
<b>and</b> that the files for all users should be available on all instances.
These requirements lead to the requirements for centralized/shared
authentication data, and for shared filesystems. The centralized/shared
authentication data can be handled by using <i>e.g.</i> SQL databases,
LDAP directories, or even synchronized password files. For shared filesystems,
the popular approaches are:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse">s3fs</a>
<li>NFS
<li>Samba
<li>Gluster
<li><a href="https://aws.amazon.com/efs/">AWS EFS</a>
</ul>
There are probably other solutions as well; the key is to have the users'
files available on any/every instance.
<p>
The next thing to keep in mind is whether you have an EC2 Classic account,
or whether you are using AWS <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/vpc/">VPC</a>.
Chances are that you are using a VPC. ELBs for an EC2 Classic account can
only be configured to listen on a <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-listener-config.html">restricted list</a>
of ports, <i>i.e.</i>:
<ul>
<li>25 (SMTP)
<li>80 (HTTP)
<li>443 (HTTPS)
<li>465 (SMTPS)
<li>587 (SMTP mail submission)
<li>1024-65535
</ul>
This means that if you have an EC2 Classic account <b>and</b> want to use
an ELB for your FTP/SFTP servers, you will need to run those servers on
non-standard ports, in the 1024-65535 range. ELBs within a VPC, on the
other hand, can listen on <b>any</b> port.
<p>
Let's assume that you are using a VPC, and thus you configure a TCP listener
on your ELB for port 21, which uses the instance port 21. And for SFTP/SCP,
it would be a TCP listener for port 22, using instance port 22. Obviously
you would not use HTTP or HTTPS listeners, but what about an SSL listener,
for FTPS? No. An SSL listener performs the SSL/TLS handshake <i>first</i>,
then forwards the plaintext messages to the backend instance. But FTPS is
a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STARTTLS">"STARTTLS"</a> protocol,
which means the connection is <i>first</i> unencrypted, and then feature
negotiation happens on that connection, and <i>then</i> the SSL/TLS handshake
happens. ELBs do not support STARTTLS protocols, thus you cannot use them
for terminating SSL/TLS sessions for FTP servers.
<p>
Your ProFTPD configuration might use multiple different ports, for different
<code><VirtualHost></code>s. Your ELB would need a different TCP
listener for each of those separate ports. However, now that ProFTPD supports
the FTP <code>HOST</code> command (which allows for proper name-based virtual
hosts in FTP, just like HTTP 1.1 has via its <code>Host</code> header), you
<i>should</i> only need on TCP listener now.
<p>
An ELB wants to perform health checks on its backend instances, to know that
that instance is up, running, and available to handle connections. ELBs
can perform HTTP requests as healthchecks, or make TCP connections. ProFTPD
is not an HTTP server, so using TCP health checks is necessary. You would
configure the ELB to make TCP connections to ProFTPD port, <i>e.g.</i> port
21 for FTP/FTPS, and/or port 22 for SFTP/SCP.
<p>
What about the range of ports defined via <code>PassivePorts</code>, that
you had to allow in your SG? Does your ELB need TCP listeners for all of
those ports, too? No. To understand why, we need to examine in detail just
how passive data transfers work in FTP. An FTP client connects to your
FTP server, through the ELB, like this, for its control connection:
<pre>
client --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> ELB:21 --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> instance:21
</pre>
The client and server negotiate a passive data transfer; the FTP server
tells the client, over the control connection, an address and port to which
to connect. Now, let's assume that ProFTPD gives the address of the ELB,
and one of the <code>PassivePorts</code>; we'l use port 65000 for this example.
The FTP client connects to the address/port <em>on the ELB</em>, like this:
<pre>
client --- <i>data</i> ---> ELB:65000 --- <i>data</i> ---> instance:65000
</pre>
This would mean that the ELB <i>would</i> need TCP listeners for the
<code>PassivePorts</code>, <i>and</i> that <code>MasqueradeAddress</code> would
need to point to the ELB DNS name. So why did I say that the ELB did not
need those extra TCP listeners?
<p>
<b>If</b> your ELB will only ever have <b>just one backend instance</b>, then
the above configuration would work. Your EC2 instance might be in a VPC,
with no public address, and thus perhaps the <i>only</i> way to make your
FTP server there reachable <i>is</i> using an ELB. Where forcing passive
data connections through an ELB starts to fail is when there are <i>multiple
backend instances</i>. Consider the case where your ELB might have 3 instances:
<pre>
+--> instance1:21
ELB:21 --|--> instance2:21
+--> instance3:21
</pre>
An FTP client connects to the ELB, and the ELB selects instance #2:
<pre>
client --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> ELB:21 --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> instance2:21
</pre>
So far, so good. The client requests a passive data transfer; the FTP server
tells the client to connect to the ELB address, port 65000, <b>but</b> the
ELB sends that connection to instance <i>#3</i>, <b>not</b> instance #2:
<pre>
client --- <i>data</i> ---> ELB:65000 --- <i>data</i> ---> instance3:65000
</pre>
This can happen because the ELB does not understand FTP; it does not know
that the data connection is related, in any way, to any other connections. To
the ELB, all TCP connections are independent, and thus any connection will be
routed, round-robin, to any backend instance. There is no guarantee that the
data connections, going through the ELB, will connect to the proper backend
instance. If there is only <b>one backend instance</b>, though, everything
will work as expected.
<p>
In order to properly support multiple backend instances (which is one of the
goals/benefits of using an ELB in the first place) for FTP, then, the trick
is to <b>not</b> force data connections through the ELB. Instead, the
<code>MasqueradeAddress</code> directive points to each backend instance's
respective public hostname. With this configuration, the FTP client connects
to the ELB for its control connection, like usual:
<pre>
client --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> ELB:21 --- <i>ctrl</i> ---> instance2:21
</pre>
And for the data transfer, ProFTPD tells the client the instance public
hostname, and port 65000:
<pre>
client -------------- <i>data</i> -------------> instance2:65000
</pre>
Notice how, with this configuration, the TCP connection for the data transfer
bypasses the ELB completely. <i>This</i> is why you do not need to configure
any TCP listeners on the ELB for those <code>PassivePorts</code>, and why
you do <b>not</b> want <code>MasqueradeAddress</code> using the ELB DNS name;
you do not want passive data connections going through the ELB.
<p>
Now you have an ELB with multiple backend FTP servers. Success, right? Maybe.
There <i>are</i> some caveats. FTP clients might notice that they connect to
one name (the ELB DNS name), <i>but</i> for data transfers, they are being told
(by the FTP server) to connect to a <i>different</i> name; some FTP clients
might warn/complain about this mismatch. ProFTPD would definitely complain
about this mismatch, for it would see the control connection as originating
from the ELB, but the data connection originating from a different address,
and would refuse the data transfer. To allow data transfers to work, then,
you would need to add the following to your <code>proftpd.conf</code>:
<pre>
# Allow "site-to-site" transfers, since that is what FTP traffic with
# an ELB looks like.
AllowForeignAddress on
</pre>
which has its own <a href="http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/FXP.html">security implications</a>.
<p>
Next, there is the ELB <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/config-idle-timeout.html">idle timeout</a> setting to
adjust. The default is 60 seconds. During a data transfer, most FTP clients
will be handling the data connection, and the control connection is idle.
Thus if the data transfer lasts longer than 60 seconds, the ELB might terminate
the idle control connection, and the FTP session is lost. Unfortunately the
maximum allowed idle timeout for ELBs is 1 hour (3600 seconds); for <i>large</i>
(or slow) data transfers, even that timeout could be a problem. There are
ways of keeping the control connection from being idle for too long, using
<a href="http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/KeepAlives.html">keepalives</a>.
<b>Note</b> that this idle timeout is not really an issue for SFTP/SCP
sessions, as all data transfers for them use the same single TCP connection.
<p>
Last, using an ELB only for FTP control connections, and using direct
connections for the FTP data transfers only works if your backend EC2 instances
<i>have</i> public hostnames; for instances in a VPC, that may not be true.
So how can we use an ELB for multiple backend instances that only have private
addresses? Sadly, the answer is: you can't. For load balancing FTP sessions
among multiple backend EC2 instances with private addresses, you need an
FTP-aware proxy, such as ProFTPD with the <a href="https://github.com/Castaglia/proftpd-mod_proxy"><code>mod_proxy</code></a> module. This means running your
own instance for doing that load balancing, rather than having AWS manage it.
Of course, if the clients using your ELB for FTP services are <i>also</i>
within your VPC, then the lack of public hostnames for your EC2 instances
is not an issue, and using an ELB as described above will work.
<p><a name="Route53">
<b>DNS and AWS Route53</b><br>
Using an ELB for balancing connections across your pool of FTP servers is
rather complex. Are there alternatives? Yes: "DNS load balancing".
<p>
Instead of using an AWS ELB for balancing/distributing connections across
your pool of ProFTPD-running instances, you can use DNS tricks to implement
the same functionality. Note, however, these DNS tricks still assume that
your EC2 instances are publicly reachable, <i>i.e.</i> have public hostnames.
<p>
With DNS load balancing, the client resolves a DNS name to an IP address,
and connects to that IP address:
<pre>
client1 ----------------- <i>ctrl</i> ----------------> instance2:21
client1 ----------------- <i>data</i> ----------------> instance2:65000
</pre>
But the DNS server might be configured with <i>several</i> IP addresses for
the same DNS name; the client then chooses <i>one</i> IP address from the given
list (usually the first address), and connects to that. Some DNS servers will
<i>shuffle</i> the list of returned addresses for a name, so that clients will
choose different addresses, and thus distribute/balance their connections
across all of the addresses:
<pre>
client1 ----------------- <i>ctrl</i> ----------------> instance2:21
client1 ----------------- <i>data</i> ----------------> instance2:65000
client2 ----------------- <i>ctrl</i> ----------------> instance1:21
client2 ----------------- <i>data</i> ----------------> instance1:65000
client3 ----------------- <i>ctrl</i> ----------------> instance3:21
client3 ----------------- <i>data</i> ----------------> instance3:65000
</pre>
<p>
Within AWS, the <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/route53/">Route53</a> service
can be used as the DNS service for your domain names. AWS Route53 calls this round robin of addresses a <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy.html#routing-policy-weighted">weighted</a> routing
policy, as each address associated with a name can be given a "weight",
affecting the probability that that address will be returned, by Route53,
when the DNS name is resolved to an IP address. Other routing policies are
supported, <i>e.g.</i> <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy.html#routing-policy-latency">latency-based</a> routing
(so that the instance with the fastest response time is chosen), and
<a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy.html#routing-policy-geo">geolocation-based</a> routing (the instance address
chosen is based on the location of the resolving client).
<p>
If you are using AWS Route53, then you will need to configure health checks,
just as you would for an ELB. Route53 supports TCP health checks, which
you would point at your FTP/FTPS port (21) or SFTP/SCP port (22) on your
instances.
<p>
Since any/all clients could connect to any/all of the EC2 instances associated
with your DNS name, all of the users would need to be able to login on any
instance, and have their files/data available. Thus using a shared filesystem
for the files (such as <a href="https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse">s3fs</a>, NFS, Samba, gluster, <i>etc</i>) and a centralized/shared authentication
mechanism (<i>e.g.</i> SQL database, LDAP directory, <i>etc</i>) would be
needed.
<p><a name="FutureWork">
<b>Future Work</b><br>
In order to automate much of the above manual steps, work is progressing on
a <a href="https://github.com/Castaglia/proftpd-mod_aws/"><code>mod_aws</code></a> module for ProFTPD, which will eventually:
<ul>
<li>automatically set <code>PassivePorts</code> for FTP/FTPS vhost, if needed
<li>automatically set <code>MasqueradeAddress</code> if needed
<li>automatically adjust Security Group rules for FTP/FTPS, SFTP/SCP
</ul>
in addition to other interactions with AWS services.
<p><a name="FAQ">
<b>Frequently Asked Questions</b><br>
<p><a name="PerUserLoadBalancing">
<font color=red>Question</font>: I need to send particular users only to
a particular instance/set of instances. How do I configure AWS to do this?<br>
<font color=blue>Answer</font>: Short answer: you cannot. But it <b>can</b>
be done!
<p>
The AWS services like ELBs and Route53 understand TCP connections, and the
HTTP protocol, but they do not understand FTP. And understanding of the
protocol is necessary, so that you know how/when to expect the user name, and
how to redirect/proxy the backend connection. This is why you cannot use
<i>AWS</i> to do per-user balancing. However, you <i>can</i> use the
<a href="https://github.com/Castaglia/proftpd-mod_proxy"><code>mod_proxy</code></a> module for ProFTPD, which <i>is</i> protocol-aware, and thus can balance
FTP/FTPS connections in multiple ways, including per-user.
<p><a name="XForwardedFor">
<font color=red>Question</font>: I am using ELBs for my pool of ProFTPD
servers. I would like my logs to show the IP address of the connecting
clients, but all I get is the IP adress of the ELB. Is there a way to get
the original IP address, an equivalent to the <code>X-Forwarded-For</code>
HTTP header?<br>
<font color=blue>Answer</font>: Yes, there is an equivalent mechanism
that is supported by ELBs for TCP listeners: the <a href="http://www.haproxy.org/download/1.5/doc/proxy-protocol.txt">PROXY protocol</a>.
<p>
To enable use of the <code>PROXY</code> protocol by your ELB, see <a href="http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/enable-proxy-protocol.html">here</a>. You will <b>also</b> need to tell ProFTPD to expect
the <code>PROXY</code> protocol, which means using the <a href="https://github.com/Castaglia/proftpd-mod_proxy_protocol"><code>mod_proxy_protocol</code></a>
module.
<p>
The <code>PROXY</code> protocol, and the <code>mod_proxy_protocol</code> module,
work equally well for FTP/FTPS and SFTP/SCP sessions.
<p><a name="PerInstanceFirewall">
<font color=red>Question</font>: Should I run a firewall on my instance as well?<br>
<font color=blue>Answer</font>: It is considered a good network security
practice to do so, as it provides security in depth. <b>However</b>, care
must be taken with those firewall rules; they need to allow the same ports/
addresses as your SGs. (Also note that local/instance firewall rules CANNOT
be applied to the connecting client's IP address when connecting through ELB.)
<!--
iptables examples from SO
IPv6
VPC instance support, Route53, ELB
most common: transfers fail/can't connect/can't list directory/can't upload/download
-->
<p>
<hr>
<font size=2><b><i>
© Copyright 2017 The ProFTPD Project<br>
All Rights Reserved<br>
</i></b></font>
<hr>
</body>
</html>