Re: Filezilla a security risk
08.07.2012 19:10, Camaleón:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:51:59 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
>
>> 08.07.2012 17:14, Camaleón:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:41:43 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
>>>
>>>> 08.07.2012 13:59, Camaleón:
>>>>
>>>>> While imaps (tcp/993), pop3s (tcp/995) and smtps (tcp/587) make use
>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>> smtps was defined as 465/tcp. 587/tcp is message submission which does
>>>> not provide encryption on the transport layer.
>>>
>>> They are used for the same purpose (secure smtp) but the former is now
>>> depretacted.
>>
>> For some definition of "purpose", maybe [1] Stating that 587/tcp was
>> smtps is simply wrong, because it implies encryption on the network
>> layer.
>
> When you replace a standard with another it would be fair to say that
> both share the same essence and they are aimed to solve the same problem.
That doesn't change the fact that one is encrypted on the network layer
while the other is not.
Especially - in contrast to what your statement implied - 587/tcp is not
encrypted on the network layer.
>> Which makes "the new standard" something very different.
>
> To my eyes, not that different in the end.
Yeah.
Your statement that 587/tcp was smtps is simply wrong. I just corrected
your wrong statement - nothing more. Why you feel the need to go to a
great length to convince someone (whoever that might be) that your wrong
statement was somehow right is completely beyond me.
--
Regards
mks
Reply to: