Roger Mills wrote:

On 09/05/2018 19:42, Paul wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


I have made *some* progress with FTP. There are two shares on the NAS
- a public one which accepts an anonymous ftp connection, and a
private one which requires a username and password. I can point my
AceFTP PRO client at either of these, and see the folders and files.
That's from within my own network, of course.

I've done a port scan, and found a number of ports open:

22 OpenSSH
110 ?
139 Samba
143 ?
443 OpenSSL
445 Samba (again)
548 Netatalk
993 ?
995 ?

Do any of these look promising as a means of getting remote access to
my files? If so, which ones, and what client software/apps would I
need to use on (a) Windows and (B) Android?

I'm thinking you want to work your network foo on Port 22.

https://serverfault.com/questions/74...-does-sftp-use

"As SFTP runs as a subsystem of SSH it runs on whatever
port the SSH daemon is listening on"

"SFTP transfers all data over the SSH connection.
No additional port is used."

Paul

Thanks. I had come to the same conclusion - and have made *some*
progress using sftp on Port 22, but still have a way to go.

As noted before, when connecting tom the NAS from within my own
network, I can use bog-standard FTP on Port 21. I can access the Private
share on the NAS by supplying the correct username and password, and can
access the Public share by using an anonymous logon.

In order to access the NAS from outside my network (Android tablet using
Android phone-generated hotspot) using sftp, I have told my router to
assign port 22 to the NAS. I can then access the Private share ok, by
supplying the username and password. But I'm stuck with the Public
share. I haven't found any way of using sftp anonymously, so I can't get
in. I've tried several Android sftp client apps - the most promising one
being AndFTP - but to no avail.

Any ideas?

I don't know *how* to do it, but I think that you need to set up
smb.conf so that the public share accepts your login credentials as a
synonym for anonymous/guest access. This creates no extra security risk
and I think it only needs a fairly simple user alias statement. But my
memory is hazy.



--

Roger Hayter