[lug] Is anon ftp upload really bad?

[Peter Hutnick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 05:49 pm, John Hernandez wrote:
> Yes, "authenticated anonymous" is indeed an oxymoron, but I didn't say
> or imply it.

Holy crap this is a Twilight Zone moment.

I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest, but here is an _unedited_ 
quote (from message-id 3CC730BE.1020602 at noaa.gov):

   > I would urge others to use anon uploads (in a safe and sane way) over 
   > cleartext authenticated FTP any day of the week.
   > 


   I don't quite get it.  If you ADD authentication (even reusable 
   clear-text passwords) to the current (safe and sane) method, how does a 
   stolen password make you any worse off, provided the account is for ftp 
   only?

The parts set off by ">" characters is me.  The other part is someone claiming 
to be you.  Maybe you think I mean something other than anonymous by "anon"?

- -Peter

- -- 
/"\ ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
\ /
 X   Get my PGP key at http://hutnick.com/pgp
/ \  6128 5651 6F23 EC17 6EBD  737D 960A 20E6 76CA 8A59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8x1zplgog5nbKilkRAmQpAJ4sxBXkD8uKwQzuBkq+2aCzhp8eFwCgiJbH
ueyzxjHcd+5ktcsvIZdd3FE=
=pRkb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----