Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:27:49 -0400 From: Jamie Norwood <mistwolf@mushhaven.net> To: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW almost works now. Message-ID: <20010612162749.A73655@mushhaven.net> In-Reply-To: <3B267827.5090002@lmc.ericsson.se>; from Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:14:31PM -0400 References: <657B20E93E93D4118F9700D0B73CE3EA0166D97D@goofy.epylon.lan> <20010612152856.A72299@mushhaven.net> <3B267827.5090002@lmc.ericsson.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:14:31PM -0400, Antoine Beaupre (LMC) wrote: > Jamie Norwood wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:25:33PM -0700, Jason DiCioccio wrote: > > > >>Welcome to the shitty protocol that is: FTP. To use active ftp, you > >>need to allow connections to all inbound ports above 1024. To allow > >>passive FTP, you need to allow outbound connections to all ports > >>above 1024. FTP is obsolete, too bad everyone still uses it though. > > > > What do you recommend? SFTP? > > > IIRC, there's a nice protocol called HTTP that does not have ftp's limitations. ;) No, it has a host of limitations all it's own, not the least of which is that is is actually less efficient at transfering files, and that it has limited CLI tools. Remember, not every computer has a monitor, mouse, and web browser! I would love to see something quality replace FTP. Maybe SFTP will, but it is still young, and if SSH is any indication, the onlt commercial support for it will be very expensive (IE, SecureCRT/SecureFX at about $100 each). Yeah, I know about PuTTY,but I don't like it. :) Jamie > A. > > -- > La sémantique est la gravité de l'abstraction. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010612162749.A73655>