Google Chrome 80 Released With WebVR 1.1, Dropping FTP Support

[Paradigm Shifter]

What is their reasoning in not supporting sftp?

I don't know. I did ask at one time and was told it was too costly. In precisely what, I don't know. SSL Certs? Server load?

There's also a lot of programs out there (still-in-development and legacy) which pull data down from public repos without authentication, although obviously that isn't going to impact Chrome.

...

Please don't misunderstand - I really couldn't care less what Google Chrome does about FTP. But the pace of development (or, rather, how frequently the version number increments) I do think "disable by default" (in 80) to "completely gone" (supposedly in 82) is rather short notice. I'll continue to use Filezilla/gFTP and/or commandline applications. About the only time I would navigate an FTP server via a browser is when they've shuffled directories around and I'm double-checking that the FTP location matches where the "pretty UI" thinks things are.

[Danny3]

Try port 25. Every ISP out there blocks inbound port 25 on residential connections. You either need to "upgrade" to a business plan, or stand up a micro sized cloud instance and openvpn tunnel in through that. I do the latter. $5/mo at Linode.

Maybe that's true, but in any case I try not to use the default ports so nobody can easily scan or bruteforce them.
I try to use a prefix like 10.000 so port 25 on the internal IP must be accessed with port 10025 on the public IP.
So yeah, programs that don't allow you to specify the port might have a problem, but the ones that I use like SSH, FTP and browser lets you specify a port if you want and they work.

[starshipeleven]

For an organization distributing public downloads to anonymous users, ftp works great and has no issues.

http servers can be (and should, and mostly are) used for the same job. It's not intrinsically different from what they already do (sending over a file to a client), and there are a bunch that are tiny and frugal.

FTP is supposed to be a full file sharing protocol, anonymous read-only shares are using only like 20% of its functionality.

Many mobo vendors offer their BIOS updates via FTP site, for example, precisely because FTP works so well in that role.

Mobo vendors use ftp because they still can, not because FTP is somehow better.

That's part of the point of Chrome developers and Google. The only legitimate FTP usecase on the web is limited to anonymous download repositories, and you can do exactly the same with a plain http server.

[starshipeleven]

I don't know. I did ask at one time and was told it was too costly. In precisely what, I don't know. SSL Certs? Server load?

Development time. SFTP requires decent quality code as it is supposed to be "Secure". This is a web browser, they don't need more failure points.
And there is literally 0 need for sftp in a browser. Anyone still using that has a client already.

There's also a lot of programs out there (still-in-development and legacy) which pull data down from public repos without authentication,

Guess why they do that instead of securing the whole connection?
Just checking a crypto signature to make sure the files were not tampered with is much much easier than setting up a bidirectional secure communication channel for file sharing.

[Jabberwocky]

You can't use any of the better alternatives like say sftp?

I don't understand your logic. How can you recommend X if you don't know Y's use? You should first determine Y before you can recommend X as a better alternative.

Perhaps not popular today, but there are some legitimate cases where ftp is a better alternative over sftp or rsync.

I don't have an issue with Chrome dropping support though, it never worked very well downloading large files. Wget all the way!

[starshipeleven]

I don't understand your logic. How can you recommend X if you don't know Y's use? You should first determine Y before you can recommend X as a better alternative.

it can be guessed within very reasonable margins. FTP capabilities are known.

there are some legitimate cases where ftp is a better alternative over sftp or rsync.

Technically correct, but only because you artificially limited the choice to sftp and rsync. If you are comparing FTP to "any of the better alternatives" as in his post, then the answer is "no there are no legitimate cases for FTP in 21st century".

[torsionbar28]

http servers can be (and should, and mostly are) used for the same job. It's not intrinsically different from what they already do (sending over a file to a client), and there are a bunch that are tiny and frugal.

FTP is supposed to be a full file sharing protocol, anonymous read-only shares are using only like 20% of its functionality.

Mobo vendors use ftp because they still can, not because FTP is somehow better.

That's part of the point of Chrome developers and Google. The only legitimate FTP usecase on the web is limited to anonymous download repositories, and you can do exactly the same with a plain http server.

I agree on most of your points. One advantage of FTP over HTTP though, for anon file distribution, is a more easily navigable folder structure. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FTP allows resuming an interrupted download while HTTP does not, making FTP better for downloading large files. IMO these two features give FTP an advantage in this regard.

As for "they use ftp because they still can", another way to look at it, is that they use FTP today because it's an existing service/system that works just fine. Why switch to HTTP when it offers no tangible improvement? Switching to something else has a cost associated with it, so from a business perspective, why incur the cost when HTTP offers no added value?

I would also posit that anon FTP is potentially more secure than HTTP, only because an HTTP server is a larger more complex piece of code, where new vulnerabilities are more likely to be discovered and/or a sysadmin is more likely to misconfigure something.

But FWIW, I don't really care that much either way, and don't use Chrome anyhow, so whatever.

[Jabberwocky]

Technically correct, but only because you artificially limited the choice to sftp and rsync. If you are comparing FTP to "any of the better alternatives" as in his post, then the answer is "no there are no legitimate cases for FTP in 21st century".

Due to NAT and encoding FTP should die, but some people don't know about anything else.

What would you recommend to use for low power devices like Pi Zero to share files. Slow CPU without fixed function processors that handle hashing/encryption. Something that is as easy to use interactively and programmatically like ftp?

I know devices like ZYMKEY 4i exist, but let's say physical space, shipping, or cost was an issue.

[starshipeleven]

a more easily navigable folder structure.

??? FTP does not provide any interface for that, the browser or filemanager does.
Chrome is just moving the load of maintaining the infrastructure from themselves to the website. And quite frankly there are 4 zillion frameworks that allow to make a dynamic download page already.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FTP allows resuming an interrupted download while HTTP does not

afaik it's wrong, http servers can let you resume interrupted downloads too (more specificially, start a new download from a specific offset). This can be disabled though and sometimes it is done to prevent the use of download managers (that use this feature to download more than one stream at the same time to increase the overall speed).

You can easily try this with a download manager or with wget/curl.

As for "they use ftp because they still can", another way to look at it, is that they use FTP today because it's an existing service/system that works just fine.

This is changing the goalposts. You started "with FTP is better" and now it's about not paying the migration cost.

Why switch to HTTP when it offers no tangible improvement?

Why support FTP in a browser when it offers no tangible improvement?

I would also posit that anon FTP is potentially more secure than HTTP

which is mostly bs because http does not allow any input by default, and any input is sanitized (you can't do injections with plain http hyperlinks).

I'm not talking of setting up Apache with Joomla and Wordpress garbage (php, database backing) to show a single download page.

You can do the same job with very basic stuff like uhttpd https://github.com/nesv/uhttpd

[starshipeleven]

Due to NAT and encoding FTP should die, but some people don't know about anything else.

People that can't learn new things will die with the old things.

What would you recommend to use for low power devices like Pi Zero to share files.

in a secure LAN anything goes, note that we were not talking of LAN usage. If you are using Chrome's basic FTP support in a LAN you are a weirdo, use your file manager instead.

For a secure system over the internet, either a read-only http server if you just need a read-only share (mentioned above), or a very light https server with file upload support.
There is one like that right here, https://github.com/Halcy0nic/SUBZero which is just a python script.