ftp == good enough for public upload and download in a chroot
environment.
scp == the preferred method for data transfer between machines. Nearly
as fast on semi-modern machines. pscp == the windows equivalent for
regault *NIXX scp.
These are fashion statements.
What is wrong with
On 28 Sep 2004, Dariusz Pietrzak wrote:
ftp == good enough for public upload and download in a chroot
environment.
scp == the preferred method for data transfer between machines. Nearly
as fast on semi-modern machines. pscp == the windows equivalent for
regault *NIXX scp.
What is wrong
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 01:27:46PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
CVE Name: CAN-2004-0414, CAN-2004-0416, CAN-2004-0417, CAN-2004-0418,
CAN-2004-0778
CAN-2004-0416, CAN-2004-0417, and CAN-2004-0418 were fixed in
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
oh, not part of THIS: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt specification?
that is like, what, 5 years old?
Well, what about this:
On 28 Sep 2004, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
oh, not part of THIS: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt specification?
that is like, what, 5 years old?
Why, no.
Why, no. That specification being for TLS, it has very little to do
correct, sorry, I pasted wrong link,
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/internet-drafts/draft-murray-auth-ftp-ssl-13.txt
but still, this draft is already several years old, I wrote perl ftp client
based on it ~1 year ago, last time I
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 12:23 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
I would suggest updating one's knowledge at least every ~5 years or so...
(it's easy for me to say, because i'm still learning, maybe people with
decades of IT experience find it more difficult to follow development of
standards)
Wow,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 06:38:03PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
for foo in `find . -name something`
Note that
$ for foo in `command outputting a list of filenames`
should *always* be replaced by
$ said command | while read foo; do ...
(Or, for trivial cases,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:39, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most of the features you list are things that are difficult to get into
Debian/main.
Not too really difficult, it depends on how it gets developed:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 09:35:50AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
BTW, I won't get into any further arguments about ftp, mainly I am
convinced its usefulness is past. Remember *I* *AM* *CONVINCED*, which
means *OPINION*. Sure other options exist, but FTP in the 5 years ago
old school sense isn't
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0400, Alfie wrote:
Assuming the U.S. government doesn't freak out and stop it, IPSEC
encryption will soon(?) be used for all internet communication
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Unless you mean
soon on an astronomical time scale, and
On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 18:58 -0600, s. keeling wrote:
No-one should have to apologise for warning against bad security
practices. $DEITY knows the Windows crowd doesn't care about it, but
we're better than that, right? One unpatched Microsh*t box in your
LAN, and one nitwit using IE, and your
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 at 04:08:38PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
I have no problems with scp, best part there isn't the mistaken problem
of transfer in ASCII mode, when it should be in IMAGE mode (or BINARY
mode) or Vice-Versa.
ASCII mode actually serves a purpose when you are communicating with
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 at 03:23:15AM -0400, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Fast I would concede, and easy is a matter of taste, mostly.
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
Unless you run an SSL-enhanced
Dale Amon wrote:
The question asked was why is anyone still using telnet
when there is ssh.
[snip]
So no, I was not replying about Debian fixes, I was replying
to the general question of 'why telnet at all'.
I know I will open a can of worms here, but telnet might actually be a
better
--- Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I will open a can of worms here, but telnet might actually be
a
better solution than ssh if you are using IPSec. I would say IPSec
obsoletes ssh in favour of telnet.
The reasoning behind using ssh, even when using IPSec, is a simple
matter of
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0400, Alfie wrote:
Assuming the U.S. government doesn't freak out and stop it, IPSEC
encryption will soon(?) be used for all internet communication, which
hahahahahahahahahaha
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Assuming the U.S. government doesn't freak out and stop it, IPSEC
encryption will soon(?) be used for all internet communication, which
hahahahahahahahahaha
agreed - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
--elijah
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:45:46PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
If you ask me, logcheck should learn how to evaluate log messages in
their context...
If you want to have instant alerts of problems then logcheck is
what you want. If you to
19 matches
Mail list logo
