[ale] Still using plain FTP? Why?

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:54:53AM -0500, Michael Trausch wrote:

> I would recommend looking at netcat. It doesn't send the NVT and Telnet
> negotiation sequences. It is a clean pipe and as close as you get to a
> raw socket without using a programming language. 

I'm aware of netcat and it's advantages. The disadvantage is having to
think through, or refer to, the command line format to use it. After 30+
years of telnet usage, it's so ingrained it's like breathing. No thought
required.

BAJ

> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Byron Jeff <byronjeff at mail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:00:13AM -0500, Jim Lynch wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2015 09:22 AM, JD wrote:
> >>> For folks using plain FTP still, I'd like to know why?
> >>> 
> >>> We all know it isn't secure and should have been removed from offers in the
> >>> 1990s (along with telnet).
> >>> 
> >>> So, if you are still using plain FTP, why?
> >>> 
> >> Can you believe that there are still web hosting companies that only
> >> support ftp access?
> > 
> > And they have customers?!?!
> > 
> >> 
> >> Telnet is a useful debugging tool.  I won't use it for remote shell
> >> access, but for a quick test to see if a port is working on a remote
> >> system, I will.
> > 
> > Ditto. It's usually why I install telnet on a machine.
> > 
> > BAJ
> > 
> >> 
> >> Jim.

-- 
Byron A. Jeff
Chair: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff