1 |
SFTP is dramatically slow from my experiences... |
2 |
|
3 |
-Benjamin |
4 |
|
5 |
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 09:39, Ben Munat wrote: |
6 |
> Well, something (ssh?) installed sftp on both of my boxes... anything |
7 |
> wrong with using that? It's secure and seems to work just fine. What do |
8 |
> pureftp and proftp offer that sftp doesn't? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> b |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Andrea Ferraris wrote: |
14 |
> >>From: "Benjamin Coles" <sj7trunks@g.o> |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> >>I second proftpd... most people like to complain and say ftp is a |
18 |
> >>unsecure protocol because it's not ssl. Well news to the people that |
19 |
> >>don't know, proftpd supports ssl which works wonders on system=) |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Thx. Good to know. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > I don't know wich are the details and I have very litle experience with |
25 |
> > proftpd and none with pure-ftpd, but for curiosity I went to pure-ftpd |
26 |
> > site and I saw: |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > "Transmission of cleartext passwords and commands can be avoided : |
29 |
> > Pure-FTPd has optional support for an SSL/TLS encryption layer using |
30 |
> > the OpenSSL library. " |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > I also saw that Pure-FTP doesn't have any records of security vulnerability, |
33 |
> > instead it seems that in the past there was compromised system due to |
34 |
> > proftpd security bugs. |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > Regards, |
37 |
> > Andrea |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> |