3 ms·

Well, in theory anything that you copy over the network can be intercepted and modified to do harm to you or your business. However, the cost of a man-in-the-mi

by mojuba 19y ago

Well, in theory anything that you copy over the network can be intercepted and modified to do harm to you or your business. However, the cost of a man-in-the-middle attack is usually higher than the content you are transferring in most cases. For example, if I'm downloading sources of an open-source program from a public web site, what's the point of attacking me and changing the contents? (And I have no idea why you were downmodded.)

epi0Bauqu 19y ago
I'm not generally concerned about a man-in-the-middle attack. What I am concerned about is someone just capturing my data and then having it or using it. For example, in my backups will usually be a copy of various databases.
- mojuba 19y ago
  Ok, I understand that, but back to my question: why do you need encryption for something that's openly available anyway, for example an open-source program? And it's not everyday that we copy private business data over the Net, so my point is, it would be nice to have an option for faster unencrypted transfers.
  - mdakin 19y ago
    Look into rsync [1] if you want transfers to be fast. You have the option (but not the requirement) to encrypt by using rsync in concert with ssh. Incidentally I do transfer private business data over the network, encrypted, every single day, usually many times per day. [1] http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/ http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/
    - ratsbane 19y ago
      I strongly agree with the article and with mdakin's point; scp is good but rsync is better. ftp is awkward, flawed, and obsolete. I am amazed that it is still used as much as it is. Perhaps the problem is largely due to Windows admins. ssh still doesn't ship with Windows and too many Windows admins aren't familiar with it.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - ratsbane 19y ago
    http. The article succinctly described several problems with ftp which http doesn't share: 1) bin/ascii modes (bytes are bytes, right?) 2) multiple ports make a mess of NAT 3) plaintext credentials.

by mojuba 19y ago

epi0Bauqu 19y ago

I'm not generally concerned about a man-in-the-middle attack. What I am concerned about is someone just capturing my data and then having it or using it. For example, in my backups will usually be a copy of various databases.

mojuba 19y ago
Ok, I understand that, but back to my question: why do you need encryption for something that's openly available anyway, for example an open-source program? And it's not everyday that we copy private business data over the Net, so my point is, it would be nice to have an option for faster unencrypted transfers.
- mdakin 19y ago
  Look into rsync [1] if you want transfers to be fast. You have the option (but not the requirement) to encrypt by using rsync in concert with ssh. Incidentally I do transfer private business data over the network, encrypted, every single day, usually many times per day. [1] http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/ http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/
  - ratsbane 19y ago
    I strongly agree with the article and with mdakin's point; scp is good but rsync is better. ftp is awkward, flawed, and obsolete. I am amazed that it is still used as much as it is. Perhaps the problem is largely due to Windows admins. ssh still doesn't ship with Windows and too many Windows admins aren't familiar with it.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- ratsbane 19y ago
  http. The article succinctly described several problems with ftp which http doesn't share: 1) bin/ascii modes (bytes are bytes, right?) 2) multiple ports make a mess of NAT 3) plaintext credentials.