opinions on replacing vsftpd with proftpd?

Jeff Vian jvian10 at charter.net
Sun Jun 20 19:48:28 UTC 2004



Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:

>On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 16:00 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>  
>
>>Am So, den 20.06.2004 schrieb Rui Miguel Seabra um 15:41:
>>    
>>
>>>proftpd has historically had many security problems (probably due to the
>>>many more features).
>>>      
>>>
>>Which software not?
>>    
>>
>
>Some software has less bugs than others.
>
>  
>
>>wu-ftpd was even worse.
>>    
>>
>
>Indeed it is!
>
>  
>
>>As always, running a server
>>with specific services you _always_ have to watch out for bug reports
>>and keep your system up to date!
>>    
>>
>
>Of course having to do it too many times without any need is not smart!
>Luckily there are other choices.
>
>  
>
>>>ftp is braindead anyway, if you have to use a daeon, use one with the
>>>least ammount of features possible.
>>>      
>>>
>>I do not agree.
>>    
>>
>
>Do you care to substantiate?
>
>Two ports for what? One of them just for carrying data? yuck!
>Can't you do the same with HTTP? Some clients even talk to HTTP in a way
>that it "looks" like an FTP site (hint: lftp).
>
>FTP is in the same class as TELNET... obsolete, redundant, less secure,
>etc... :)
>  
>
So I am to assume you wish everything we do to be based on a web browser 
(http).?
  
In my experience too often I see a very slow transfer with web browser 
even using the ftp protocol (ftp://ftpserver/filename ).  When I switch 
to the ftp client it speeds up dramatically. ( 8kb/s using the browser 
can easily become 120kb/s or more using the ftp client ) YMMV

And just how much do you know about the programming and technology that 
makes the ftp protocol (using 2 ports) work so well that makes you 
complain about it?  IMHO using a control port and a data port can easily 
and understanably speed the transfer.  The control signal does not have 
to be checked for on every packet sent/received on the data channel --> 
less processing --> speeds up transfer and communication simplified. 
 Each port has a dedicated task that it does well.

Too many people want a multifunction "one size fits all" memory and 
resource huingry tool (ala Windows); rather than using multiple tools 
each of which is small and does its job very well and efficiently(ala *nix).

There are many techniques that benefit from using multiple ports 
although few are as specific and bandwidth hungry as ftp.  It is 
efficient *because* it uses 2 ports.

>Hugs, Rui
>  
>





More information about the fedora-list mailing list