I've heard it from some sources that SFTP is preferable to FTPS. If this is the case, I'm wondering why exactly.
feedback
|
migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 24 '09 at 7:00
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
|
I prefer SFTP over FTPS mainly because it takes extra effort to set up an FTP server on a server. Most probably the server is going to already have SSH installed to administer it remotely, so why not just take advantage of what is already installed? Using SFTP requires no extra effort to get it running. Most FTP clients have built in support for SFTP, so client support is mainly a moot point. | |||
|
feedback
|
|
This page from CodeGuru has a good summary of the pros and cons of each:
| ||||
|
feedback
|
|
SFTP has no problems with port mappings, and thus no issues with NAT router/firewalls. (And, many home DSL and cable modems are in fact NAT routers, and attaching a standalone wireless access point might even introduce "double NAT".) In FTP, and hence in FTPS, multiple connections are needed. Client and server agree on the IP address and ports to be used within the so-called "application level" communications. But, a NAT router or firewall (which would rather only care about "transport level" issues) needs to know about these details, and hence needs to inspect the actual data. This raises many issues, which are non-existent for SFTP. | ||||
|
feedback
|
|
I dont think that one is preferable over the other. It really depends on your infrastructure. This thread from CodeGuru discusses the pros and cons of SFTP and FTPS. One benefit of FTPS is the data channel. The data channel can be redirected to transfer files from server to server. This feature is not well understood. Thats why alot of people would say that the FTP data channel is unnecessary. I believe that if you're just interested in sending files securely, then you should go with FTPS. If you already have an SSH infrastructure, then SFTP might be useful. | ||||
|
feedback
|