Quote:
Originally posted by markus1982
Well if you do not care for security at all you have nothing to loose. Just also leave the front door of your house open and trust each and every person ...
|
Why do you keep saying things like this? Since when does "It would be nice to have an easier means for implimenting virtual hosts" equate to "I would rather have vhosts than security"? You'll note that I was asking about ways to impliment this using vsftpd.
Quote:
Originally posted by markus1982
Well that is true, it also could be done the xinetd way. However the problem is not vsftpd, the problem is in the nature of the ftp protocol. In HTTP/1.1 there is a Host-param that is used for virtual hosting; FTP does not have such a param. So running 2 anon ftp's will have to be done with or without xinetd. [/B]
|
Sure, you couldn't do name-based virtual hosts, but I can't think of any good reason, security or otherwise, to not allow a single daemon using a single config file to manage multiple IP-based virtual hosts. Lots of other services do it, so I was just wondering why vsftpd doesn't and whether that functionality is planned for future releases.
