Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon Kills Free FTP Access

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the would-you-like-to-check-a-bag dept.

Verizon 130

First time accepted submitter JP205 writes "Verizon recently disabled FTP access for its Internet customers who use its proprietary service to build their personal websites. It turns out that if you want FTP access restored, Verizon is happy to grant it to you for an extra $6 a month."

cancel ×

130 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FTP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252002)

People still use FTP? WTF?

Re:FTP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252036)

reliable, simple, unambiguous, easy to automate, low overhead method for moving any sort of files.

Re:FTP (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252188)

Reliable? Unless you need to go through a NAT
Simple? Nothing's as simple as connecting to one port for the control channel and then having another random port you need to connect to for a data channel and then there's the PASV/EPASV vs. Active question.
Unambiguous? Every server displays different text, I'm not even sure the prompts are the same
Easy to automate? It's a challenge-response password mechanism
Low overhead? See the "simple" rebuttal

And, oh yes, all passwords are strictly in the clear.

SCP, on the other hand, is reliable, simple, unambiguous, much easier to automate, and overhead isn't nearly the problem on modern computers as it was when you tried to get it working on a 386SX. And one more thing, it's SECURE!

Re:FTP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252296)

Most of your arguments are quite weak. Quit being a douche. SCP isn't all rainbows and lollipops, either.

Re:FTP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252542)

I disagree. I find SCP to have highly significant rainbow and lollipop content.

Re:FTP (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#37252576)

I'm colorblind and have diabetes, you insensitive clod!

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252720)

I'm diabetic and have cancer, hand me another Mt. Dew while I enjoy the lollipop before I drop.

Re:FTP (5, Funny)

metamatic (202216) | about 3 years ago | (#37252888)

I use rsync, which practically shits rainbows.

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37255086)

You should probably see a doctor about that.

Re:FTP (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | about 3 years ago | (#37253264)

Yes, but the additional sunshine does mean that everything involvedis wonderful.

It has the Lesley Gore seal of approval!

Re:FTP (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 years ago | (#37252338)

"Simple? Nothing's as simple as connecting to one port for the control channel and then having another random port you need to connect to for a data channel and then there's the PASV/EPASV vs. Active question."

So you claim it has a fault then provide the answer and say its a question? Riiight.

"Easy to automate?"

Yes. And if you don't know how to do it then you've obviously never used ftp for much of anything so your opinions are void.

Re:FTP (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 years ago | (#37252520)

So you claim it has a fault then provide the answer and say its a question? Riiight.

Uhh... Yes, he did. "FTP has faults X, Y, and Z; This alternative solves those faults". I don't see the problem.


And if you don't know how to do it then you've obviously never used ftp for much of anything so your opinions are void.

Don't act like an ass. I've "automated" more than a few FTP connections to pull in daily data feeds (EDI, price feeds, transactional data, etc). And every single one of them required slightly different syntax. Some servers don't like dir vs ls. Some always use binary mode. Some don't support mget/mput, or don't support it recursively. For EOL "conventions", you may as well flip a coin - On top of which, some servers will deal with the "wrong" EOLs, some give useful feedback, some just shit the bed. PASV solves one set of problems in exchange for another (cheap insecure home firewall? Great, no problems. Actually secure corporate firewall? Prepare for a day of agony, and expect it to break every time you get an update).


SCP also has its own problems, but you look silly mocking the GP for the suggestion.

Re:FTP (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37253034)

I've "automated" more than a few FTP connections to pull in daily data feeds (EDI, price feeds, transactional data, etc). And every single one of them required slightly different syntax.

Doesn't, say, the FTP module of Python abstract that away for you?

Some servers don't like dir vs ls.

And SCP doesn't like either, as far as I can tell. That's why I prefer SFTP, automated with the aid of Paramiko, an implementation of SSH and SFTP in Python on top of PyCrypto. But not all web hosts support SSH access at all.

PASV solves one set of problems in exchange for another (cheap insecure home firewall? Great, no problems. Actually secure corporate firewall? Prepare for a day of agony, and expect it to break every time you get an update).

In what way is a cheap home firewall insecure?

Re:FTP (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 years ago | (#37253696)

"And every single one of them required slightly different syntax"

Oh BS. I've yet to come across an ftp server than didn't except the standard rfc commands.

"For EOL "conventions", you may as well flip a coin"

Wtf are you talking about? What are these servers running on, Windows??

Re:FTP (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37254126)

Uhhhh...dude? Everybody here seems to be going off an an epic FTP VS SCP debate while missing the forest for the protocols, which is this is yet again an ISP nickle and diming and being douches, which I'd say is a LITTLE more important than whether one uses FTP or SCP to connect.

After all if one doesn't have a royal shitfit when they do this on the unpopular stuff when it gets to the popular stuff the public will be so used to being gouged they won't even notice. it is bad enough while the rest of the planet is getting huge pipes run we in the USA get to ride the short bus to the information superhighway, but now they are gonna nickle and dime for every little bullshit they can think of.

Re:FTP (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37252352)

How about "widely available and what newbies were taught to use for decades because nobody built a good, free Windows GUI for scp until much later"?

Not to mention "gets the job done." If it gets the job done, most people don't want to learn a new tool.

Re:FTP (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37253872)

I was using WinSCP in 2001. I think it was on version 2.3 then. Learning a new tool wasn't exactly a problem - it looked like Windows Exporer, so once you'd typed in your login details (once, then it saves them) you just needed to drag and drop in exactly the same way you would with WebDAV or FTP.

If my clients were using Windows, I'd probably favour WebDAV-over-HTTPS over SFTP, simply because Explorer has support for WebDAV, while they need to install a free program to use SCP / SFTP.

Re:FTP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252386)

Really, who uses SCP? It's clumsy to use, since it doesn't provide directory listings. You still need FTP or another protocol to provide remote listings and other file operations.

Use SFTP. It's a mush better protocol than SCP or FTP (it's not FTP over SSH!).

Re:FTP (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37252566)

If I have reliable SSH access, I rather use sshfs.

Re:FTP (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37254774)

Use SFTP. It's a mush better protocol than SCP or FTP (it's not FTP over SSH!).

No, it's not. It's a different tool, for different uses. I use scp all the time; if I want to copy a single file (or a group of them) from one PC to another, and I already know exactly where I want to put them, scp is easily the fastest and easiest way to do it. With the public keys already programmed into each PC, I don't even have to bother with passwords; copying a file with scp is almost as simple as a regular "cp" command, except that I have to add in a machine name.

Now obviously, if I want to go to some other site and browse directory listings, scp simply isn't the right tool for the job. But if I don't need directory listings, sftp has a lot more overhead and typing involved.

Re:FTP (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37254804)

Really, who uses SCP? It's clumsy to use, since it doesn't provide directory listings. You still need FTP or another protocol to provide remote listings and other file operations.

I use scp every single day. It's simple to use, and I don't need remote listings. I'm frequently logged into several Linux boxes (using ssh), and need to copy from one to the other. scp makes it a simple one-line operation, just as simple as a "cp" command, except I just have to add the machine name. Why do I need remote listings when I'm already logged in with ssh?

Obviously, if you're connecting to some machine you're not logged into, not completely familiar with, and need directory listings to see what you're doing, then sftp is the right too for the job. Not all jobs are like that.

Re:FTP (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#37254110)

It's been fifteen years since I saw a NAT router have a problem handling FTP.

Re:FTP (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 years ago | (#37254212)

Unambiguous? Every server displays different text, I'm not even sure the prompts are the same

Every HTTP server displays different text as well. Hell, every 404 page is different, yet all HTTP clients seem to know it's a 404.

Deal is, FTP has numeric response codes. The FTP client looks at those to figure out the responses, and displays the text portion for the user so they don't have to know the FTP numeric responses.

Re:FTP (1, Insightful)

shish (588640) | about 3 years ago | (#37252300)

Is this one of those times that the mods are modding a comment "insightful" because "funny" doesn't give a karma bonus? I hope it is...

Re:FTP (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#37252340)

I think more importantly, universal.

There have been much better alternates (sftp for instance) for a long time. I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered). That said, just about every web host still supports FTP, and all the click-n-drool web dev tools have built in FTP clients. It's still the lowest common denominator for newbies to get their files on the web.

Re:FTP (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#37252964)

I consider myself techy but I use FTP first if it's available. It's simple, I can do it with my eyes closed. I can SCP if necessary but frankly I find it a waste. If I needed to send files I considered really important (financial data or something) then I'd do something more secure than FTP. Appropriate tool for the job. Lowest common denominator task on a closed network? Use the lowest common denominator tool.

Re:FTP (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#37253406)

To each their own I guess ;p

I actually find sftp more convenient, as there is no real server setup (assuming you are already running ssh), no annoying firewall configuration, and you don't need to specify a password every time (assuming you have ssh keys set up). The added security is just a (nice) bonus.

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37254490)

It's not so much the files themselves that are the worry.. but the fact that you are sending your username and password in plain text. This is especially worrying if you are on a shared host.

Re:FTP (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 3 years ago | (#37253980)

I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered).

A few factors (ssh server config, client CPU, server CPU, etc.) can make SFTP orders of magnitude slower than FTP, especially if the network link is fast.

For updating a website over your Internet connection, it probably won't matter, but when transferring 100GB over LAN, it can make a huge difference.

Re:FTP (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 years ago | (#37252476)

And completely without anything resembling real security. It even subverts *other* security by being difficult to route through a firewall.

Re:FTP (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 3 years ago | (#37252502)

Purely out of morbid curiosity, what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?

Re:FTP (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 years ago | (#37252684)

what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?

Just about any non-windows firewall, including network firewalls.

Re:FTP (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 3 years ago | (#37252842)

Purely out of morbid curiosity, what firewall are you using that doesn't have application level support for FTP?

Every firewall that I don't personally control.

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252040)

Yeah, so?

People use *some* file transfer protocol (1)

F69631 (2421974) | about 3 years ago | (#37252042)

No alternative has been offered in place of FTP, such as the more secure SFTP.

From TFA.

Re:FTP (-1)

robbyb20 (651479) | about 3 years ago | (#37252044)

You must not have a webpage that you maintain..

Re:FTP (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 years ago | (#37252100)

I maintain about 20 of them and WILL NOT USE FTP.

SFTP is what anyone who is competent uses. even frigging Go-daddy has it.

Re:FTP (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 3 years ago | (#37252398)

And did Verizon provide an alternative? No they didn't. They'll gladly charge $6/month for FTP not secure FTP.

Read the article moron.

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252114)

You must not have a webpage that you maintain..

Umm, yes I do. I use rsync+ssh to maintain them.

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252088)

Why not?

Re:FTP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252178)

Jesus christ how horrifying.

Why haven't these people seen the light of HTTP uploading? It's much more modern and Web 2.0

Re:FTP (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 3 years ago | (#37252406)

Yeh, you're right, scp, sftp, rsync, none of these tools exist ;)

A real web hosting provider (-1, Offtopic)

suso (153703) | about 3 years ago | (#37252326)

Since this article is just an advertisement for Verizon's hosting service (otherwise, what do we really care about Verizon Webhosting?), I'd like to take this chance to advertise my company, Suso Webhosting [suso.com] , where we have been offering SSH/SCP/SFTP access since day one and will continue to do so. Use SLASHDOT in the referral field and you'll get 20% off.

Re:FTP (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 3 years ago | (#37252330)

For quick and easy transport of stuff that has no security implications, sure. It even works through NAT, if you know anything about networking. Yes, there are better choices in most cases, but ftp still has it's place.

Re:FTP (1)

vtcodger (957785) | about 3 years ago | (#37253330)

Of course people still use FTP. A lot of us want the master copy of our web site to be on our own machine and our own backups. But Website Hosts have these neat GUIs to automate upload? I have not the slightest inclination to manually update 800 files four times a year. I doubt you would either. Most Website Hosts (Google excepted) support FTP. But there are better ways? Probably. But I have my hands full fixing stuff that is actually broken.

Re:FTP (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37253924)

But I have my hands full fixing stuff that is actually broken

Was that stuff broken by the script kiddie who sniffed your FTP password?

Re:FTP (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | about 3 years ago | (#37254434)

I have a simple server for a simple purpose hosted by a third party that requires FTP or web style uploads. Look, it may not be the best method, but I don't stop beside the Amish buggies I pass and shout "WTF" at them.

Re:FTP (1)

Retron (577778) | about 3 years ago | (#37255120)

Every 3 minutes here - my weather station FTP's data to my ISP's personal homepages server.

Misleading summary is incomplete. (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 3 years ago | (#37252016)

Verizon didn't "kill FTP access". They didn't shut down the protocol. They only shut off FTP access to their free personal web page hosting servers. That's a big difference when you're writing a headline.

It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 years ago | (#37252050)

Besides, who uses these services anyway. Anybody I know who wants a little web server just pays the $5 a month and gets a shared hosting package. You get a lot more features this way. Most Home ISP web server packages only let you serve up static files, with no scripting abilities or anything. I personally can't even believe they have the service at all.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#37252136)

It's for people who want to take that next step up from Verizon's craptacular home page.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37255150)

At 5USD/mo they're paying too much. You can get a lightweight VPS for like 15 bucks a year now. It will more than do what the average person needs for a small website to run Wordpress or something.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#37252202)

It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

Wait, when was this golden era of non-sensationalism on Slashdot?

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 years ago | (#37252278)

That would be when my UID was considered to be in the "newb" group

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

elp (45629) | about 3 years ago | (#37253244)

As far back as I can remember Slashdot summaries have put fox news headlines to shame.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253156)

When Michael was an editor.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

AtlantaSteve (965777) | about 3 years ago | (#37252228)

It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

I kept my snark to myself during the CmdrTaco farewell love-fest last week, because it seemed a bit "too soon" for that. However, I gotta ask... what in the world are you guys talking about?!? No one's been putting "fine editing" on anything for years now. Headlines were misleading and sensationalized to draw eyeballs last month, and they still will be next month.

That is Slashdot. Most of us who love it, do so for its amazing comment community rather than its borderline whore-ish editors. If you want to mourn CmdrTaco's departure, you're a bit late... the departure really happened back when Slashdot was first sold off to a corporate interest back in the day.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

plover (150551) | about 3 years ago | (#37252748)

Ummm... whoosh?

6 years ago I'd have cracked the same joke about Jon Katz (and probably did.)

It's never too early for snark. I was just on vacation this weekend.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#37253758)

Sometimes you have to make the sarcasm explicit. Too many people are actually claiming that things are going to hell now that Taco has left.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

Zarhan (415465) | about 3 years ago | (#37253000)

Agreed. When I find interesting topic, the best stuff is reading comments at +4. Usually there's information on what is *actually* occurring, instead of whatever the summary/linked blog/linked popularized article says.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252506)

Dumbass headlines on Slashdot didn't just show up this week.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

lm2s (2432822) | about 3 years ago | (#37252518)

Verizon didn't "kill FTP access". They didn't shut down the protocol. They only shut off FTP access to their free personal web page hosting servers. That's a big difference when you're writing a headline.

It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

Shame on you for wanting the truth instead of the news!!

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37252590)

>>It's days like this that I miss the fine editing that CmdrTaco used to provide.

You must be new here.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252614)

Well, Verizon indeed didn't "kill FTP access" as you put it, but it did "kill FREE FTP access" as the title of the article puts it.

Don't feed the trolling editors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252948)

Don't feed the trolling editors.
No more replies.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 3 years ago | (#37253070)

I'm not 100% sure about that. About 6 months ago, I could no longer FTP to my hosting account at bluehost.com from my home computer (ISP=Verizon) but I could from work. No biggie though, I just started using SCP, which is better anyway.

Misquoting headline is misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253174)

So the headline was "Verizon Kills Free FTP Access." You removed the word "free," then complained that the word "free" wasn't there.

Re:Misleading summary is incomplete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253228)

> fine editing
> CmdrTaco

cool story bro

oh yeah baby (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252034)

nigga hard

OSS Be Damned! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252062)

So, if you're using web development tools on Linux/BSD/WhateverOS like many sane people do, how are you supposed to upload your content? .... not that these savvy nerds would be buying hosting from Verizon though, so I guess not much is lost.

Re:OSS Be Damned! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252138)

This just in: They don't give a shit about your irrelevant OS that has a market share percentage that isn't even higher than the statistical error rate. Besides, everyone knows that only nigger faggots ues Linux and no one cares what a nigger faggot wants.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252180)

This way nobody is tempted to use the password-leak known as FTP. Not offering an alternative protocol then removes the temptation to host web pages on a service that's tied to your internet provider.

Password-leak terminated.
Lock-in avoided.

This looks like an all around win to me.

Misquoted? (1)

return 42 (459012) | about 3 years ago | (#37252312)

ITYM:

Verizon recently disabled FTP access for those foolish enough to use its proprietary service to build their personal websites.

boy 90% of posters here are stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252434)

its about making a website off there servers with FTP ....NOT your own personal file server.

All i have to say is that in time no one will host anything in the usa all they do is drive away all the IT business and looky oh boy seems Canada is getting some movies made cause um i dunno its cheaper with fewer rules to make a movie?

Re:boy 90% of posters here are stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252870)

Re:boy 90% of posters here are stupid

Yeah, you sure proved them!

Next time you think about posting, try having just one more tiny drink instead. That should put you right over the top into an alcohol-induced coma, rendering you unable to post anything at all, and sparing the rest of us from your incoherent babble.

Options (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | about 3 years ago | (#37252486)

Change is never welcome by most people. We're creatures of habit.

Not sure what Verizon's rationale was; security concern with FTP, operational support, strategic decision to get rid of the free web service?

  • Host with a free web hosting service; update your existing Verizon site to re-direct to the new location.
  • Host with a paid hosting service; update your existing Verizon site to re-direct to the new location.
  • Transition to the fluffier "Site Builder"
  • Use the "My Domain" service as stated in the article
  • Find an alternate ISP
  • Blog like crazy until Verizon cracks from the bad press and returns FTP access

Lots of pros/cons with all these options, the main being the fact that some folks are stuck with existing Verizon URL or e-mail addresses that will make the move to something else a tad harder.

Re:Options (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | about 3 years ago | (#37254060)

I'm paying $4/month for database (if I wanted it), ColdFusion and secure FTP for my .org sites. So free personal web hosting that requires $6 for FTP access doesn't seem like such a good deal. It's kinda like those ads I see where something's free as long as you pay for shipping and handling. Or used books on Amazon that cost only a penny, as long as you pay for shipping and handling.

Good! FTP should die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252496)

FTP should be taken out back behind the woodshed & put out of its misery.

Use a nice secure protocol like SFTP instead.

The fact that so many people are complaining about this shows how little they understand security.

Of course, Verizon sucks, so they aren't likely to deploy SFTP as a replacement...

Personal web pages? (5, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | about 3 years ago | (#37252740)

Wow. I bet both users were not only outraged, but they were even more infuriated to learn that geocities was gone too....

1996 called, they want their web hosting solution back.

1992 called, they want their protocol back.

1990 called, telling me I owe it royalties on this joke....

Re:Personal web pages? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252872)

Kill yourself.

Re:Personal web pages? (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 3 years ago | (#37253190)

1992 called, they want their protocol back.

1992? For FTP? It's not even that recent. 1985 for the current specification (RFC 959) [wikipedia.org] , but it's first version was written as early as 1971

Re:Personal web pages? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 years ago | (#37253554)

I think it's more important to know, does verizon offer sftp?

because uh, fuck regular ftp. it's only good for public sites. but for those I wish it made a comeback, so fucking tired of 10 phase gui selection to find some driver.

Re:Personal web pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253712)

Because navigating through 10 levels of insane directory structure with arcane naming+versioning schemes is easier?

Re:Personal web pages? (2)

Darth_brooks (180756) | about 3 years ago | (#37254008)

Nope. No SFTP access, so really this is more about just killing off personal webhosting than FTP access.

And really, if you can figure out FTP for web hosting, it's not much of a leap to just run FTP on a box at home if all you're doing is storing files. Or SSH.

Safe Sex (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 3 years ago | (#37255338)

because uh, fuck regular ftp.

Actually, don't. You might catch something.

:-p

Re:Personal web pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37254676)

FTP pre-dates TCP/IP itself, which explains some of its funny quirks like the way active transfer mode works. Before SMTP, the primary means of transferring mail was FTP and opening the inbox for append.

Re:Personal web pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253328)

Did you warn them? You know, that all future jokes like this would forever be overshadowed by XKCD?

Re:Personal web pages? (1)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | about 3 years ago | (#37253752)

My only use for that space is (was) to provide links to files which made the FTP interface for uploads extremely useful. Verizon's other tools are awkward, cumbersome, and roughly equivalent to reaching over your right shoulder with your left hand to retrieve something from your left-side back pocket. Using FTP only required a simple script.

Re:Personal web pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37254706)

when all of those years called, did you warn them about the tsunami's in thailand and Japan, or about the war on terror?

FTP? Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252758)

As long as they are providing SFTP for free, I don't really care.

(disclaimer: I don't know *what* they are providing)

Re:FTP? Who cares... (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 3 years ago | (#37253146)

They're not providing SFTP. They're not providing anything, from what I read, other than a "site builder"-type software package (which probably can't work with custom files). Basically, they're holding customers' sites hostage to a price increase.

And they replaced it with...nothing (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 years ago | (#37252770)

Ok, so Verizon's website builder thing is pretty lame, but if you need a place to host a small file or two it works pretty well and comes free with your service. However, previously the ONLY ways of getting data on there were FTP and their totally useless "I'll make a crappy looking website for you, you just pick how much lens flare to add!" website. They've just killed the one way that was actually somewhat useful. I know some of you are suggesting that FTP is dead and you should be using SCP instead, and I agree, but Verzion hasn't gotten the message.

To be fair though, they probably did get a lot of complaints about their FTP server, because it advertised EPSV4 support, but was on a machine that had a firewall that blocked ports above 1024. So basically it only worked on Windows XP with the ancient FTP program that shipped with it unless you were a guru. I'm sure they've been getting more and more complaints about it and decided to just shut the thing down instead of trying to figure out how to fix it. Lord knows the tech support guys I talked to had absolutely no clue what I was talking about when I tried to get this fixed years ago.

anon ftp still useful (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 3 years ago | (#37253550)

FTP is not dead. Still useful for anonymous dowloading like for the latest Linux kernels [kernel.org] . Don't recall ever seeing an anonymous SCP transfer method.

verizon kills free ftp access (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37252976)

free or paid, Verizon is known for taking a feature you've always used and converting it to a charge you for it plan.

One step in the right direction (1)

SpanglerIsAGod (2052716) | about 3 years ago | (#37253768)

Anonymous FTP is okay for personal use with data that contains no personal information I suppose, but from a corporate perspective it is a real pain to deal with companies who think we would trust software downloaded from an FTP site without MD5 hashes stored separately to compare against. It's even worse to deal with companies who think it's ok to upload log data that may contain who knows what confidential information to "password protected" FTP site. We should be beyond clear text passwords by this day in age, and it shouldn't be that hard for a company to setup an HTTPS site that allows customers to upload dump files. /rant

I use it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37253806)

I build a web site with a friend and pointed my godaddy address at it... The number crunching bit is an AJAX call back to the server verizon hasn't discovered yet. It has worked very well for over a year... I guess good-bye to updates.

Lame decision (1)

meburke (736645) | about 3 years ago | (#37254100)

The problem for customers seems to be deciding how they are going to maintain their websites. SiteBuilder really sucks; It is hard to use, lack features and design, and only has limited options. Customers I've talked to seem to resent not having the choice of protocols and methods. Theoretically, SiteBuilder will allow you to upload your own pictures and graphics into your selected templates, but it works better in theory than in practice.

Until now, a person with a limited website account could still design locally and upload using ftp. I can see the rationale for disabling anonymous ftp, but not the capability to use ftp to maintain your own website.

Cloned Time Warner (1)

i621148 (728860) | about 3 years ago | (#37254510)

Same thing happened with Time Warner cable. You used to be able to create web pages and FTP to your personal directory. Then you could only use a stupid python website generator. Then they just totally took personal web pages away. (No suprise that no one wanted a "custom" web page generated to look like it was made by a ten year old.

No SFTP either? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37255122)

From looking at Verizon forums, the problem seems to be that, unlike everybody else in web hosting, they discontinued FTP without supporting SFTP as a replacement. Most hosting services now require you to use SFTP instead of FTP, and SSH instead of Telnet.

Dreamweaver can use FTP or SFTP, so people with sites big enough to need Dreamweaver have no problem with that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>