Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN
From: mgrd (mgrd_at_gmx.net)
Date: 04/27/04
- Next message: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Previous message: Alpha: "Is it possible to choose a better way?"
- In reply to: Colin McKinnon: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Next in thread: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Reply: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Reply: Jim Hatfield: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:43:48 +0200
Colin McKinnon wrote:
> ITguy_uk spilled the following:
>>It basically seems a bad idea to give
>>users shell access when they only need to transfer files.
>>
>
> Yup, even though it should be OK with (e.g.) /bin/flase as the users shell
> its still just not right.
For an FTP only account it's sufficient to put `/sbin/nologin' in their
passwd file
- Next message: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Previous message: Alpha: "Is it possible to choose a better way?"
- In reply to: Colin McKinnon: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Next in thread: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Reply: Chris Calabrese: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Reply: Jim Hatfield: "Re: sFTP compared with FTP via VPN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]