On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > By your statements, vsftpd is secure, while wu-ftpd and proftpd are not. > There are no known exploits for vsftpd, there are lots of exploits for the > other two. It appears you have successfully proven the opposition's > argument... congratulations. I did comment vsftpd is more secure than wu-ftpd previously. Show me the last exploit that affected proftpd that did not affect vsftpd? I must have missed it, as must have cert. vsftpd must be more secure than most, because it does bloody nothing :) Natuarally the more a daemon does the more possibility exists for an error in the code, but for what it does, its pretty secure. > Speed? Until and unless large-scale, objective benchmark tests are run and > published, "A or B is faster" is pretty much your own opinion. You think > it's slower, I think it's faster. You don't give a damn what I think, I > don't give a damn what you think. Arguing is stupid. QED. Exactly, lots of things come into it, I use on my servers what I find best, you use on yours what you find best, as I stated in my reply to Bob, we are ALL only giving " our own opinions " as to how we find it on " our own " networks. -- -Res lns01-wick-bne> ipfirewall addb reject all from aol.com to 0
