sftp Vs scp

Ben Lindstrom mouring at offwriting.org
Fri Jan 25 09:34:23 AEDT 2019

Can't stop people from doing stupid things.  And frankly I've come to 
realize one shouldn't even try as it is a waste of energy.

I'm sure there is some admin out there still clinging to telnetd and 
rlogin/rsh because "it is muscle memory."


Stuart Henderson wrote on 1/24/19 3:54 PM:
> On 2019/01/24 15:38, Ben Lindstrom wrote:
>> Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote on 1/24/19 3:23 PM:
>>> On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 12:27 -0600, Ben Lindstrom wrote:
>>>> I know it isn't a "UI replacement" but it at least provides a more
>>>> complete UI for phasing people off of scp.
>>> I don't think this is an ideal solution...
>>> OpenSSH should be "overall" secure (that's what it's meant for), and
>>> especially not be a collection of tools/algos/etc. of which some(!) are
>>> safe to user and others not (with the user having to know which).
>> Not sure what your arguing against as your comments below this pretty much
>> re-enforce what I'm stating. Which is:
>> Scp should die, and we should add "sftp -U [file/path] host" feature as our
>> recommended replacement.
>> As no amount of work will fix scp completely.  And every other solution
>> makes it worse and more complex.
> If you do that, users will just leave the old scp binary lying
> around so that muscle memory and scripts still work. It wouldn't be a
> big surprise if some distributions re-added it in a patchset, even.

More information about the openssh-unix-dev mailing list