From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Jun 8 4:44: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A60215878 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:43:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA62038; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:43:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Holtor Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's FTP Daemon References: <19990608104549.4750.rocketmail@web113.yahoomail.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 08 Jun 1999 13:43:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: Holtor's message of "Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:45:49 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 30 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Holtor writes: > Hello, I run a moderatly sized ISP and as an > FTP daemon we use NcFTPD (www.ncftpd.com). I wouldn't, if I were you. I've never used ncftpd, but judging from ncftp, the author has absolutely no concept of how to properly implement the FTP protocol. > most of these features are included with using > the normal ftpd from inetd. If you expect large amounts of FTP traffic, you might want to run ftpd in standalone mode. > A few things I need to know first, is were can I get > more information about this? Configuration wise.. The man page, of course. If that's not enough, read the source code. It's quite beautifully written. > Secondly, lately i read some stuff about security > in this ftpd? Running the normal ftpd that comes > with freebsd is probably the safest way to go am I > correct? It's pretty well-tested. I'm not aware of any vulnerabilities. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message