Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI/FTP security question

Yes, TFTP is normally done over UDP, but there's nothing that says it must be. In fact, IIRC, the RFC explicitly states that other transport layers are OK. Be sure to check out some the extentions to it that can improve efficiency.

A quick google found RFCs 783, and 1350---does it having only two RFCs associated with it sound right to you?

Also, does it support sessions? (I'd think not), because I would guess that multiple files will need to be sent with some requests--files that I would prefer not to waste time authenticating over again

Actually, I could probably make it a session based tftp... but...

I guess, I am more confuse now than before--I have much to grok.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI/FTP security question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: CGI/FTP security question by hardburn (Abbot) on Dec 11, 2003 at 14:38 UTC
. . . does it having only two RFCs associated with it sound right to you? I think there are a few others that are more "expermintal extentions". http://www.rfc-editor.org should be able to find them. Also, does it support sessions? Not in the protocol as defined, though sessions don't make sense in a protocol primarily used over UDP. Since you'll probably be doing it over TCP, it's probably worth adding. Anyway, TFTP was just a suggestion. It may or may not be too much work to modify for your project. ---- I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident. -- Schemer `: () { :\|:& };:` Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated	[reply] [d/l]
Re**6: CGI/FTP security question by dakedesu (Scribe) on Dec 13, 2003 at 07:59 UTC
From what little I've read of it, I think its simplicity is rather nice. I'll check out the experimental extensions, as I am sure that there might be something useful there too. From the looks, I only have to change the names of a few functions (I am using $AUTOLOAD in strange and wonderful ways) Read more... (478 Bytes)	[reply]