Re: The yearly FTP rant (Was: Re: Passive FTP and NAT/PAT with PIX and Serv-U)

[Mikael Olsson <mikael.olsson () clavister com>]

Tom Kistner wrote:
> There are umpteen other ways to transfer files, why not 
> use one of those ?

If FTP was just a matter of personal preference, I wouldn't
be whining, believe me. The problem is that there is LOTS
of stuff that is only reachable through FTP, so _I_ need
FTP enabled aswell, even though I really don't want to.

Also, it keeps networks around the world vulnerable as
they also need the same access.

This is why FTP needs to be officially deprecated, or at
LEAST changed so that it doesn't use separate data channels.

As I said, extending FTP with a command to move the
data channel inline is a small job. If added to the
major FTP server implementations, it'll be rolled
out to the majority of the large sites in a tolerably
short time, without breaking backwards compatibility.

-- 
Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB
Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00   Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05
Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50       WWW: http://www.clavister.com

For bored sysadmins: http://lart.badf00d.org
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () nfr com
http://list.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards