On Sat, Mar 01 '08 at 16:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > that's a stupid (and incorrect) analogy
yes, it is a stupid analogy, but it's not incorrect. > if it's a public FTP, then there's nothing to be secured. if someone is > sniffing traffic and the traffic is encrypted, then the attacker merely needs > to go to the public FTP and fetch the files themselves. For me it was so very obviose that OP did not want to encrypt the traffic but the file. OP has a public ftp server (ftp.company.com) where he would like to place the update files. While there everyone can get the file, they should not be able to _USE_ them. So encryption is what he asked for. -- /"\ Goetz Bock at blacknet dot de -- secure mobile Linux everNETting \ / (c) 2007 Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 de X [ 1. Use descriptive subjects - 2. Edit a reply for brevity - ] / \ [ 3. Reply to the list - 4. Read the archive *before* you post ] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
