I just got notified that i can upgrade to CuteFTP Pro 1.0 which uses CuteFTP Pro - Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) & SSH2

The upgrade is only US$19.95 but is it worth upgrading to if the servers you connect to support OpenSSH ? I mean is what i currently use - CuteFTP 4.2 is it that unsecure ?

I currently am trialing SecureCRT for SSH telnet connections as well.

What do you guys think ?

I dont know about secure transfer, the only thing about cute, is that it has a caching problem... if your workstation is inaccessable, then it should'nt be a problem.
It seems to me, that unless you are moving sensitive information, such as credit card info between a secure server and your work station you would'nt really need a Secure connection, unless it gives you terminal access to exit command line on the server itself.......


However, you can check out this Link.
There is all kinds of info on exploits and security stuff with it.

http://astalavista2.box.sk/cgi-bin/robot/robot?srch=cute+ftp&project=robot&gfx=robot

Hi

This may be off topic, in a "Web Sucurity" forum, but since you brought up the topic of CuteFTP Pro, I will take my changes.

I too have recieved the mail from Globalscape, and am downloading the new file as I write this. The reson I want to try out the new "version" of CuteFTP is that I have lately been experiencing a problem with CuteFTP 4.2.
When uploading/downloading to a webserver, in a network, I guess at 100mbits p/s, everything is great when the file is large, a 600mbyte download only takes a minute or two. The problem arises if there are 1000`s of small files. The CuteFTP session starts out in top speed, but after a 5-10 minutes everything slows down, and it has nothing to do with the line. It seems like there is an issue in the CuteFTP programming which is`nt quite right. I can open a seperate session of the program, and it then starts out in top speed, and has the same issue after som minutes.
Everything slows dramaticly down, decreasingly to be almost slower then ISDN performance. I know there is nothing wrong with the line.

Anyone experinece anything similar?

I hope CuteFTP Pro has addressed this issue.

Wazup

It seems to me, that unless you are moving sensitive information, such as credit card info between a secure server and your work station you would'nt really need a Secure connection, unless it gives you terminal access to exit command line on the server itself.......


Data security is one matter which is addressed by 'secure' protocols and not by normal ftp. I think the problem most people fear is probably that of the user's password being sniffed. Since ftp passwords are commonly the same as the unix account passwords, it can easily lead to the account being exploited. And if the password is the same for other accounts...


I can open a seperate session of the program, and it then starts out in top speed, and has the same issue after som minutes. Everything slows dramaticly down, decreasingly to be almost slower then ISDN performance. I know there is nothing wrong with the line.


Do you only observe this behaviour with cuteftp and not with other ftp clients?

Originally posted by eva2000.com
I currently am trialing SecureCRT for SSH telnet connections as well.

What do you guys think ?



I think you don't need to trial it :)

I have always used a program called PuTTY for secure telnet connections. The program is free and you can get it here (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/).

Regards,

Mike

Originally posted by Phiberop
Originally posted by eva2000.com
I currently am trialing SecureCRT for SSH telnet connections as well.

What do you guys think ?



I think you don't need to trial it :)

I have always used a program called PuTTY for secure telnet connections. The program is free and you can get it here (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/).

Regards,

Mike

I really like SecureCRT, especially compared to Putty... and trial? Every heard of a key gen program? *L* (luckily I used to work for a company that had the license information and didn't have to do anything "bad" to use it, still, since I still help them out once in a while.) I didn't like Putty at all, when I tried it long ago... but I didn't bother with it too much either.

Originally posted by eva2000.com
I currently am trialing SecureCRT for SSH telnet connections as well.
/B]

I like PuTTY, mindterm (at http://www.mindbright.se/mindterm ), and teraterm with the ssh extensions (search the web for it). All of them are very good, and free to use. As mindterm is a java based client, it can also be put on your webserver and run using a browser. Which client you eventually choose (even including using SecureCRT) probably depends a lot on which one is more appealing to you. I don't think SecureCRT has any features-edge over the other... not that I require anyway.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
I really like SecureCRT, especially compared to Putty... and trial? Every heard of a key gen program? *L* (luckily I used to work for a company that had the license information and didn't have to do anything "bad" to use it, still, since I still help them out once in a while.) I didn't like Putty at all, when I tried it long ago... but I didn't bother with it too much either.

That's rather disappointing, coming from a programmer.

Originally posted by pyng
Originally posted by eva2000.com
I currently am trialing SecureCRT for SSH telnet connections as well.
/B]

I like PuTTY, mindterm (at http://www.mindbright.se/mindterm ), and teraterm with the ssh extensions (search the web for it). All of them are very good, and free to use. As mindterm is a java based client, it can also be put on your webserver and run using a browser. Which client you eventually choose (even including using SecureCRT) probably depends a lot on which one is more appealing to you. I don't think SecureCRT has any features-edge over the other... not that I require anyway.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
I really like SecureCRT, especially compared to Putty... and trial? Every heard of a key gen program? *L* (luckily I used to work for a company that had the license information and didn't have to do anything "bad" to use it, still, since I still help them out once in a while.) I didn't like Putty at all, when I tried it long ago... but I didn't bother with it too much either.

That's rather disappointing, coming from a programmer.


If you're referring to the "ken gen" comment, that was a joke...