From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Sep 17 19:58:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB633EBEDC for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:58:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pete@nomadlogic.org) Received: from mail.nomadlogic.org (mail.nomadlogic.org [174.136.98.114]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.nomadlogic.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BsnpF6NRbz4Wqs; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:58:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pete@nomadlogic.org) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (cpe-23-243-161-111.socal.res.rr.com [23.243.161.111]) by mail.nomadlogic.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c9262712 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Deprecating ftpd in the FreeBSD base system? To: Ian Lepore , FreeBSD Current References: <202009171404.08HE4fZj007939@slippy.cwsent.com> <4d2c3d9dd633ed9a264cf3675dcbb4386f11ada3.camel@freebsd.org> <20200917194941.GY4213@funkthat.com> From: Pete Wright Message-ID: <5e9effdf-0fc6-5c3c-3d40-19f7a528fa3e@nomadlogic.org> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:58:22 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200917194941.GY4213@funkthat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4BsnpF6NRbz4Wqs X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.01 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[nomadlogic.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.96)[-0.959]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[23.243.161.111:received]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.72)[-0.722]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.03)[-0.032]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25795, ipnet:174.136.96.0/20, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:58:31 -0000 On 9/17/20 12:49 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Ian Lepore wrote this message on Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:01 -0600: >> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 18:43 +0400, Gleb Popov wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 6:05 PM Cy Schubert < >>> Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've been advocating removing FTP (and HTTP) from libfetch as well. >>>> People >>>> should be using HTTPS only. >>>> >>> Isn't this a bit too much? I often find myself in need to download >>> something starting with "http://" or "ftp://" and use fetch for this. >> Indeed, we have products which rely on this ability in libfetch and we >> have to keep supporting them for many many years to come. >> >> I hate it when someone imperiously declares [For security reasons] >> "People should/shouldn't be using ______". You have no idea what the >> context is, and thus no ability to declare what should or shouldn't be >> used in that context. For example, two embedded systems talking to >> each other over a point to point link within a sealed device are not >> concerned about man in the middle attacks or other modern internet >> threats. > And I really dislike when people want to make sure that their unique > case that less than a percent of people would every hit blocks the > security improvements for the majority of people... > > I've given up on a number of security improvements in FreeBSD because > of this attitude... > while i tend to agree with you here - i would say that in this case there is a very large use case where preservation of http is very important to a wide base of users: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instancedata-data-retrieval.html https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/storing-retrieving-metadata https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/instance-metadata-service regarding the main topic tho - dropping ftpd from base seems like a good iteration in clearing out cruft from the code base so we can focus on things with much larger user bases.  fortunately we have an excellent ports/pkg infrastructure to service this need if it arises. -pete -- Pete Wright pete@nomadlogic.org @nomadlogicLA