Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 72 Beta Deprecates TLS 1.0/1.1, Steps Towards Deprecating FTP

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post

    What? When? What port will be used instead? Any links?
    I believe the intent was to say that HTTP/1.1 (port 80) is being deprecated in favour of HTTP/2, which browsers only implement in an encrypted (port 443) version.

    They're accomplishing that by making new browser features only available when the site is served with encryption to slowly entice everyone to at least switch to HTTPS (port 443) with their HTTP/1.1.

    Comment


    • #12
      It would be nice to see FTP support in Chrome replaced also with something that people use such as SCP.
      The problem is that Chrome is largely for non-technical users and that market does not need FTP, SCP and are too easily tricked so unencrypted HTTP must go too.

      Great for consuming content and Facebook but I don't believe technical users could ever get excited about the removal of features haha.

      Comment


      • #13
        They really ought to block .exe and .msi files over FTP and HTTP (but FTPS and HTTPS is fine though)

        Comment


        • #14
          Perhaps there should be an XML protocol for directory listings, which could be used inside of HTML and other XML protocols , which would provide for a standard way of demarcating directory listings which would be useful for scripts and command line utilities. FTP has been a pain to use because of the problems it has with NAT, but dropping support for it is foolish since there are still FTP sites around .

          Comment


          • #15
            You should be using SFTP (SSH File Transfer Protocol) instead of FTP or FTPS anyway. Now that Windows 10 has built in SSH support all major operating systems natively support SFTP.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              Most users don't care about FTP. If its important to you, just use a dedicated FTP client, such as FileZilla.
              Clients can register the ftp:// URI scheme handler so that it launches when you click a hyperlink that points to a FTP resource.



              HTTP have a concept of resources. Resources can be downloadable and can be files.
              Most web servers can be configured to list files in a directory.
              A REST web application can also give you the directory listing in JSON format.

              HTTP verbs
              • GET - Downloads a resource (i.e a file).
              • POST - Uploads a resource (i.e a file).
              • PUT - Updates/modifies/overwrites an existing resource (i.e a file).
              • DELETE - Deletes a resource (i.e a file).
              The problem is that there is no structured directory listing verb. If you request a directory in HTTP, you get whatever nonsense it's configured for; which may or may not include a timestamp, a file size (which may or may not be formatted), etc. Some FTPs even let you use path globbing in directory commands.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                Deprecating FTP? That's not a good thing since I sometimes stumble upon FTP links and it is pretty useful to download them from the browser...

                (plus, non-securable is not true... there is FTPS but it is barely, barely adopted)
                I guess the bolded part is why FTP is usually assumed as "unsafe"

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by LinAGKar View Post
                  HTTP can't replace it though, since it doesn't have a concept of files and doesn't support file operations such as dir listing.
                  What about webdav?

                  Afaik browsers don't usually implement full ftp clients anyway so you can only browse and download, and that can be done also with webdav.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Britoid View Post

                    Any performance improvements would be quickly offset by extra bloat in pages. The web feels slower than 5 years ago.
                    Amen to that.

                    The few times I look at the web without an adblocker and NoScript I freak out at the amount of bs all over the place.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by microcode View Post
                      The problem is that there is no structured directory listing verb. If you request a directory in HTTP, you get whatever nonsense it's configured for; which may or may not include a timestamp, a file size (which may or may not be formatted), etc. Some FTPs even let you use path globbing in directory commands.
                      Is this even relevant for a web browser's limited FTP functionality?

                      We are talking of a web browser dropping its limited support for FTP, not about Google sending its ninjas to kill off FTP.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X