Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:58:14 -0400 From: Jamie Norwood <mistwolf@mushhaven.net> To: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OT: yet another discussion FTP vs HTTP (was: IPFW almost works now.) Message-ID: <20010612165814.B74054@mushhaven.net> In-Reply-To: <3B2680EB.9040007@lmc.ericsson.se>; from Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:51:55PM -0400 References: <657B20E93E93D4118F9700D0B73CE3EA0166D97D@goofy.epylon.lan> <20010612152856.A72299@mushhaven.net> <3B267827.5090002@lmc.ericsson.se> <20010612162749.A73655@mushhaven.net> <3B2680EB.9040007@lmc.ericsson.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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, > > I heard a few things regarding that, all contradictory. :) Could you > give me a few examples/explanations/references as to why it is less > efficient? I'd be curious. I have to admit I have nothing on hand, so will concede that battle for lack of ammunition. I could easily be wrong. > > and that it has limited CLI tools. > > I think that would be the biggest limitation. HTTP could technically > override FTP's functionalities using the PUT and DELETE actions, but the > only clients actually implementing this functionality are either dead > (netscape 3) or forgotten (amaya). :) The question is why bother? If, as you say above, there is no difference between the two other than interface, what makes HTTP better than FTP? FTP has suited well for CLI work for many years. (Continued below) > > > Remember, not every computer has a monitor, mouse, and > > web browser! > > Yeah... but every computer should at least have something like > lynx/links/w3m/wget/fetch/whatever... > > You don't need a fully featured web browser to download/upload files to > a webserver. Only to display them. Same for ftp. But they make it unessacarily convoluted to browse for wanted files. HTTP is not, in this case, an adequet substitute for FTP. Yes, these methods .work., but are more of a kludge than anything. > > 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). > > SFTP is not really an alternative. From what I understand, it is only > built over ssh and therefore needs a corresponding shell account (if you > exclude the RSA auth). SFTP is only needed over FTP in circumstances where security is needed, which is any time a password is involved. Anonymous FTP doesn't need SFTP. > It is surprising we (the internet community) haven't come up with a > viable replacement. No, it isn't, because I don't really think there is a need for an elaborate replacement. What is so broken about FTP? > > Yeah, I know about PuTTY,but I don't like it. :) > > Well, it's better than almost anything else on windoze. ;) Well, AbsoluteFTP and SecureCRT are much better (IMHO. For many purposes, they are of similar power level), but cost an arm and a leg because Vandyke aims at business customers not end-users. 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?20010612165814.B74054>