Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTP: Better Than HTTP, Or Obsolete?

Posted by timothy on from the don-your-holy-vestments dept.

An anonymous reader asks "Looking to serve files for downloading (typically 1MB-6MB), I'm confused about whether I should provide an FTP server instead of / as well as HTTP. According to a rapid Google search, the experts say 1) HTTP is slower and less reliable than FTP and 2) HTTP is amateur and will make you look a wimp. But a) FTP is full of security holes. and b) FTP is a crumbling legacy protocol and will make you look a dinosaur. Surely some contradiction... Should I make the effort to implement FTP or take desperate steps to avoid it?"

2 of 870 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In my opinion, by captain_craptacular · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Ahh, I always set hash on before command line ftping. Then I get to see the pretty #'s fly by...

    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
  2. Re:Different, not better or wose by Skater · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    A friend of mine was over the other night scanning pictures for her website. Apparently her brother set up a website with FTP access for their family. I FTP'd the site (she was having trouble getting it to work, so I used command line FTP to test it), and logged in using anonymous.

    I then noticed that I was able to upload files (to any directory), download files (same), and delete files. As an anonymous user. In their web pages directory, too. Defacing that website would be so trivial that I doubt even the usual twits would bother.

    Nothing like waving a flag that says "Warez traders! Come here!"...

    --RJ