Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:29:21 +0100 From: Jase Thew <bazerka@beardz.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTPd recommendation? Message-ID: <44670681.7020703@beardz.net> In-Reply-To: <20060514020756.qywfiti4g0skk4co@webmail.1command.com> References: <20060504134723.M54964@enabled.com> <20060504174447.GC2095@ayvali.org> <18e02bd30605051302x7575859u5f6c71031fa6f5c5@mail.gmail.com> <20060514020756.qywfiti4g0skk4co@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris H. wrote: > Quoting Iantcho Vassilev <ianchov@gmail.com>: > >> My vote goes to PureFtpd.. >> It`s ideal server.. > > But is not *nearly* as secure as vsftpd. Hi, I'm curious - do you have any empirical evidence to support this? A trawl of a few vulnerabilty databases would suggest your comment is not entirely accurate. NVD NIST [1] shows 4 entries for vsftpd (latest 2005-12) , 1 for pureftpd (latest 2004-08) SecurityFocus [2] shows 1 entry for vsftpd (latest 2004-05), 2 for pureftpd (latest 2004-07) ISS X-Force [3] shows entries 3 for vsftpd (latest 2004-05), for 1 pureftpd (latest 2004-07) Regards, Jase. [1] http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm [2] http://www.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities [3] http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/search.php
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44670681.7020703>