You don't make sense, this is a protocol problem, not a code problem, you can't just incrementally address the issue without breaking everything. Fixing the scp (really, rcp) protocol would incur more churn than just moving to rsync or sftp which are already well established replacements.
No it's whe have already sftp wich is better and whe have unfixed bugs in scp so whe throw it out.
>>The scp command is a historical protocol (called rcp) which relies upon that style of argument passing and encounters expansion problems. It has proven very difficult to add "security" to the scp model. All attempts to "detect" and "prevent" anomalous argument transfers stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows. Yes, we recognize it the situation sucks. But we don't want to break the easy patterns people use scp for, until there is a commonplace replacement
No, "sildur" was correct that the "sftp" protocol is not better than the "scp" protocol.
Another poster described in detail the problems with the "scp" and "sftp" protocols. They have different advantages and disadvantages and neither of them can be considered a good file copy protocol.
>It has proven very difficult to add "security" to the scp model.
>>Compared to the SCP protocol, which only allows file transfers, the SFTP protocol allows for a range of operations on remote files which make it more like a remote file system protocol.
> The scp command is a historical protocol (called rcp) which relies upon that style of argument passing and encounters expansion problems. It has proven very difficult to add "security" to the scp model. All attempts to "detect" and "prevent" anomalous argument transfers stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows. Yes, we recognize it the situation sucks. But we don't want to break the easy patterns people use scp for, until there is a commonplace replacement.
The problem is that in many cases those bugs are in fact the intended behavior and changing it would break backward compatibility. I think it is better to leave it as it is and move to a different tool.
You are lucky that someone is working on a rewrite! If it were up to me I would have solved the problem with a nice rm -rf. Be careful what you wish for..
