[lug] Is anon ftp upload really bad?

[John Hernandez]

Oh, I see.  No pissing please.  What I meant by "current safe and sane" 
practices refers to the oversight and file ownership/permissions scheme 
- nothing to do with anonymous access.

Peter Hutnick wrote:

> -----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-----
> 
> 


-- 

   - John Hernandez - Network Engineer - 303-497-6392 -
  |  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration   |
  |  Mailstop R/OM12. 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305  |
   ----------------------------------------------------