5 ms·
> The most reasonable "update" to FTP would be to formally replace it with HTTP, because FTP is an awful protocol --- maybe the worst one in common use --- that
by zrm 8y ago
> The most reasonable "update" to FTP would be to formally replace it with HTTP, because FTP is an awful protocol --- maybe the worst one in common use --- that deserved to die off decades ago.
The biggest problem with FTP[S] is that it interacts poorly with NAT. So maybe the problem is IPv4 and the solution is IPv6.
- marcosdumay 8y agoFTP also interacts badly with firewalls and network administrators (both the competent and not competent versions of them). It also interacts way too well with the NSA and ISP eavesdropping.
- zrm 8y ago> FTP also interacts badly with firewalls and network administrators (both the competent and not competent versions of them). Passive mode FTP works fine with firewalls that allow outgoing connections. Even active mode can work using something like Port Control Protocol. It's only a problem when the network is tightly locked down. And when everyone's answer to that is to use TLS/443 for everything, how is that better than just leaving the unprivileged outgoing ports open? You end up allowing everything either way, but with the everything-over-port-443 outcome you can't even selectively block things anymore. > It also interacts way too well with the NSA and ISP eavesdropping. You could say the same about HTTP, which is why they both support TLS.