Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:56:18 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: grog@FreeBSD.org Cc: danfe@nsu.ru, obrien@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/lukemftpd - Imported sources Message-ID: <20021113.215618.62371469.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20021113232322.GP2919@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20021112171203.GB59816@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021113111030.GA83756@regency.nsu.ru> <20021113232322.GP2919@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20021113232322.GP2919@wantadilla.lemis.com>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: On Wednesday, 13 November 2002 at 17:10:30 +0600, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:12:03AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:15:53AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
: >>
: >>> Lukemftpd *cannot* be the suggested FTPd.
: >>
: >> Why?? It works fine for many and I've seen many installations use it
: >> that find the "regular" ftpd *way* too feature limited for any ftp site
: >> on the naked Internet.
: >
: > AFAIC, regular ftpd is more secure and robust than lukemftpd. I've
: > seen reports in the past saying that performance issues in lukemftpd
: > are unavoidable WRT fixing them. Until we get performance and
: > security up to what we have in ftpd right now, IMHO it's rather
: > meaningless to compare features.
:
: This is the first report of this kind I've heard. Can you supply
: details?
The security part is easy: the last 3 or 4 ftp exploits to hit
lukemftp havne't hit our base ftp because someone went through it on a
paranoia bent in '94 or so and secured it.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021113.215618.62371469.imp>