Re: [fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers
From: Marcus J. Ranum (mjr_at_ranum.com)
Date: 06/07/03
- Previous message: Frank Knobbe: "Re: [fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Maybe in reply to: John Smith: "[fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Paul Robertson <proberts@patriot.net>, John Smith <john.smith@minolta-qms.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:23:52 -0400
Paul Robertson wrote:
>_Try_ *really* hard to use an HTTP server, FTP is a horrible protocol.
Paul is absolutely correct. FTP is an evil, bad, nasty, P.O.S. protocol. If
an intern at Microsoft tried to come up with a file transfer protocol they
could hardly do as bad a job.
Here's a completely BOGUS argument you can use for why you should
not use FTP on a busy web server: because FTP uses a control channel
and a data channel, it uses 2 sockets for every connection. That's a
big <cough><choke> performance drain on a busy server.
...I've actually said that with a straight face and had people decide to
use http instead, so what the heck.. ;)
mjr.
--- Marcus J. Ranum http://www.ranum.com Computer and Communications Security mjr@ranum.com _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Frank Knobbe: "Re: [fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Maybe in reply to: John Smith: "[fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] OT: FTP Servers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|