Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:53:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Matt Heckaman <matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com>, FreeBSD-ISP <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FTP Servers Message-ID: <200007290453.WAA25511@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290047340.34363-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca> References: <200007290440.WAA25453@nomad.yogotech.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290047340.34363-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : > FUD. > : > : Except for the fact that it's a fact, as has recently been shown. :( > > Well, that's unfair. That bug hit virtually every ftpd around. I would not > hold it against proftpd. It didn't hit FreeBSD's stock ftpd. > I've been using it for quite awhile and I am very > happy with their approach to the concept and their implimentation. I'm using it as well. But, others who I have great respect that have reviewed their code are not impressed with it. > : > proftpd is excellent. > : > : If security isn't important. Currently I know of know full-featured FTP > : server that has source available and is freeware. > > That's not fair. A root exploit that hit virtually every ftpd is not > grounds to go and say proftpd should only be used "if security isn't > important" I still stick with what I said. And, I still don't know of any full-featured FTP server that is secure. > Think about it for a moment, in my eyes, this bug does not > detract at all from proftpd's solid performance. Nobody is perfect. The same thing could be said about wu-ftpd, which has logged more miles than *any* other freeware ftp server. That it's worked for years doesn't mean it is seucre. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007290453.WAA25511>