opinions on replacing vsftpd with proftpd?

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 20:23 -0600, Aly Dharshi wrote:
> > FTP+ssl is just as bad. One of the problems is the way the client talks
> > with the server, and not just the authentication.
> 
> 	No it is not bad, I work for a large ISP and ftp is great for most 
> people they can easily get something that can do ftp, secondly its 
> extremely simple to use, you can drag and drop, even in an Microcrap 
> environment, which is what most average users use out there. Imagine 
> trying to educate someone about ssh et al, ftp is simple, ftp + ssl is 
> even better, one can give people the ability to use the same simple 
> system system without having them hit another learning curve and provide 
> security for them in the process.

You keep avoiding the issue: the protocol. You can't make decent filters
to handle it unless you use a dedicated ftp proxy that allows specifying
a limit to the ports that will be opened.

>	I haven't seem many sftp/scp proggies out there, WinSCP being the 
> exception that does really well. FTP has been around for a while and can 
> do the job for trivial things. Usually tech savvy people are the ones 
> employing ssh technologies. :)

Wincrap users can use webdav over ssl with client side certificates (if
needed) and mount web shares quite easily. Even over a normal proxy.

Rui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040621/670aa612/attachment-0001.sig>