sftp

[Pete Chown]

Ben Lindstrom wrote:

> This may be a silly idea, but if we are looking to write an "Open
> Standard" replacement version of the commerical sftp, and we currently
> agree that doing ssh w/ standard ftp would be a pain in the arse.  What
> would stop us from using passive ftp?

How would passive FTP help?  You could set openssh to forward the
control connection, but the ports for the data connections would be
chosen at random by the server.

> It does not spawn off a data channel.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it did.  It
simply reverses the direction.  In normal FTP the client listens and
the server connects.  In passive FTP the server listens (on the data
port as well as the control port) and the client connects.

HTTP might be a better bet, but then we would have to define a format
for directory listings.  HTTP can transfer files fine, but directory
listings are usually just HTML designed for humans to read.

(BTW, on a different subject, I've been looking at supporting the
OpenPGP key blobs described in the secsh drafts.  The client basically
works but the server still needs a bit of work.  It's looking quite
interesting though -- for example you can arrange it so that signing
someone's key is sufficient to enable them to log in.)

-- 
Pete