[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:25:04PM -0500, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> >> In fact, some implementations are quite secure, and are always
> >> improving.
>
> Name one.
If you can't find one, you shouldn't be running a publicly accessible
ftp server. And if you aren't prepared to keep up with patches for
this server, you shouldn't be running such a server either.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult or to attack you here, but
let me say this: the FTP protocol is well-understood, and there's a
lot of experience out there with writing secure FTP servers.
You have expressed a desire to just do away with both the FTP protocol
and all of the experience gained with writing purportedly secure FTP
servers over the years, and replacing all of this with <some other
protocol> implemented by <some-other-server>.
Given your constraints, I feel justified in being a bit skeptical.
New protocols take time to implement, and new servers are hard to
write. There's also an integration issue -- you shouldn't be
surprised if when you discover this new protocol/server that there is
a dearth of GUIs supporting this scheme.
--kevin
--
Kevin D. Clark (CetaceanNetworks.com!kclark) |
Cetacean Networks, Inc. | Give me a decent UNIX
Portsmouth, N.H. (USA) | and I can move the world
alumni.unh.edu!kdc (PGP Key Available) |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
