Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:53:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Roshchin <str@giganda.komkon.org> To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW almost works now. Message-ID: <200106122053.QAA29678@giganda.komkon.org> In-Reply-To: <000f01c0f377$9f325e70$9865fea9@book>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: "alexus" <ml@db.nexgen.com> > Subject: Re: IPFW almost works now. > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:41:06 -0400 > > scp and sftp;) > AFAIk, neither of them offers an anonymous ftp access. > > 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 FTP is obsolete, too bad everyone still uses it though.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. ;) HTTP has problems with anonymous uploads (sometimes those are needed, despite possible hazards associated with that). In any case, as somebody already noted, http has much more problems in effectiveness of transfer due to an overhead. Also, most of the web browsers do not have some capabilities like those offered by, say, ncftp, or similar Windows ftp clients, where you can transfer the whole directory tree. Igor 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?200106122053.QAA29678>