Guest wrote:

Will are you support FTPS ?

This request is being tracked already.

Nawin wrote:

In older version of winscp when loggeed in as ssh stop at continue pop up message when Banner and MOTD is set to off mode.
but this is fixed in lastest open sources i would like to know the code that fixed it.

I'm sorry I do not understand. I'm not aware of such fix.

In older version of winscp when loggeed in as ssh stop at continue pop up message when Banner and MOTD is set to off mode.
but this is fixed in lastest open sources i would like to know the code that fixed it.

cheers,
Naveen.

Kill Bill wrote:

And WebDAV (which is based on http, a much better protocol than ftp) is maturing quickly. It is very easy to setup a secure WebDAV server over SSL to allow authenticated uploading, with very fine level of access controls. The current issue for WebDAV to replace authenticated ftp uploading is on the client side. Now if a low-cost, user-friendly WebDAV client appears ...

This issue has been added to tracker.

InGearX wrote:

it would be great if WinSCP supported FTP, or alike program :)

WinSCP supports FTP since 4.0.

many sites do not support SFTP :( and there are many many other reasons... for some data security is just not needed - like a public avi...

it would be great if WinSCP supported FTP, or alike program :)

So I was just updating a site over FTP (nothing else allowed) with FileZilla thinking "damn, why doesn't WinSCP support FTP?" and got the idea to check this site for some reason. And WOW! THANK YOU! I'm not saying anything bad about FileZilla, I personally just don't like their interface.

Now the only thing that makes me keep FileZilla is the FTPS support. So this is a vote for adding that as well. Since it is the FileZilla core that's used the support for it probably is in there somewhere already so I'm hoping it's not too much of a hassle to add.

Very sorry just realised my tools were using the old executable path, and me as well.
I fell like a real muppet :oops:

Thanks for the quick response

dethrophes wrote:

I'm just wondering if it would also be possible to support ftp on the command line?

What do you mean by that?

Just first off I'd liked to add my praise of the program to the others.

I'm just wondering if it would also be possible to support ftp on the command line?

Kill Bill wrote:

The plain ftp connection is insecure because username/password are trasnfered in clear text, as you have known it. But this is only part of the reason. Both the plain ftp and encrypted ftp (i.e., ftp over SSL/TLS) need two ports on both the server side and the client side; while port 21/tcp or 990/tcp (i.e., the command port) on the server is fixed and always in listening mode (i.e., waiting for a client to connect), the data port varies and on the active ftp mode it is not in listening mode. Due to this complicate nature, it is very difficult to set firewall and other security policy to protect the server or the client. It is this very reason that people say ftp was not designed with security in mind.

FTP over SSL/TLS only solves part of the problem.

oh okay, didn't knew the port issue, i knew that FTP is using two ports but didn't knew the detail that much.
But unfortunately my hoster (allinkl) only supports FTP, and thank god also FTPS. So I am really happy to have a secured connection. and not just only plain FTP.
On my own servers where I could install everything I would surely run SFTP/SCP.

Kill Bill wrote:

It sounds that you very much hate FileZilla. Did you know that the new WinSCP 4.0 beta actually uses the ftp engine from the FileZilla project? And both WinSCP and FileZilla use code from PuTTY for sftp/scp support. In my opinion all these open-sourced software deserves credit.

sorry for the misunderstanding. I am happy to have an open sorce software that gives me the ability to use FTP and FTPS. I am very happy to have an open source software that supports SCP and SFTP, with really the best UI I have ever seen. I also like Putty very much.
All these software Products have advantages and disadvantages. FileZilla has FTPS support grate, but a simple UI. WinSCP has SFTP, SCP and now FTP support, and a really grate UI. Putty is the securest remote shell i know of, tiny and also has a feature i have never seen on other programs before, the ability to prevent server side bugs, which can be toggled.

I pay on every software that has been developed creadit. As I know how many time is passed by until you get a small program runnig the way you want to have.
But is it bad to say that i do not like the FileZilla UI and would love to see the FTPS support in an application with a grate UI, WinSCP?

Kill Bill wrote:

It sounds that you very much hate FileZilla. Did you know that the new WinSCP 4.0 beta actually uses the ftp engine from the FileZilla project? And both WinSCP and FileZilla use code from PuTTY for sftp/scp support. In my opinion all these open-sourced software deserves credit.

I believe that it is not a point. The difference that most users see between filezilla and winscp is the UI. While you may not see it, it is huge. Some like UI of filezilla, some UI of winscp.
Anyway, filezilla does not support scp. WinSCP does not use PuTTY for sftp/scp support. It uses PuTTY for ssh support only and implemented sftp/scp on its own.

<quote>
So I installed it and had to realize that there is only pure FTP support :(
Actually I thought such a secure program would surely also implement FTP over SSL/TLS as it always said FTP is insecure and we do not implement it for that reason.
</quote>

The plain ftp connection is insecure because username/password are trasnfered in clear text, as you have known it. But this is only part of the reason. Both the plain ftp and encrypted ftp (i.e., ftp over SSL/TLS) need two ports on both the server side and the client side; while port 21/tcp or 990/tcp (i.e., the command port) on the server is fixed and always in listening mode (i.e., waiting for a client to connect), the data port varies and on the active ftp mode it is not in listening mode. Due to this complicate nature, it is very difficult to set firewall and other security policy to protect the server or the client. It is this very reason that people say ftp was not designed with security in mind.

FTP over SSL/TLS only solves part of the problem.

<quote>
I am really happy that FTP has been implemented yet, and still can not wait until SSL/TLS support for FTP gets also implemented, so that I finally can get rid of the UI of FileZilla. Mainly it is a really good program with the lack of a good UI.

...

Really looking forward to finally get rid of FileZilla ... :)
</quote>

It sounds that you very much hate FileZilla. Did you know that the new WinSCP 4.0 beta actually uses the ftp engine from the FileZilla project? And both WinSCP and FileZilla use code from PuTTY for sftp/scp support. In my opinion all these open-sourced software deserves credit.


--
Let's play my favorite game at http://www.xbill.org/

martin wrote:

Guest wrote:

Will are you support FTPS ?

It is not planned yet. Now has ever asked for that so far :-)

I'll do! :)

Hi, as I again (10th time or so) was searching for a better FTPS client to connect to my virtual hosted server, i stumbled upon WinSCP again.

And my first idea was, shit they will never support FTP as they always said "it will never be implemented".
So I went to this forum and took a look to the feature requests and had to be told that FTP support is already implemented in the new 4.0 Beta versions. I really went crazy. As I always had the big wish to have FTP/FTPS support in WinSCP. And finally it came true :)

Normally I do not try beta software as it still could contain bugs. But in this case now, I really could not wait any longer.

So I installed it and had to realize that there is only pure FTP support :(
Actually I thought such a secure program would surely also implement FTP over SSL/TLS as it always said FTP is insecure and we do not implement it for that reason.

I am really happy that FTP has been implemented yet, and still can not wait until SSL/TLS support for FTP gets also implemented, so that I finally can get rid of the UI of FileZilla. Mainly it is a really good program with the lack of a good UI.

I really love the well thought through interface of WinSCP and would really appreciate it if it would also support FTPS. Just can't wait to see that feature added.

I really would like to help you with that, but with the lack of C++ knowledge I think I can't help you that much.

Really looking forward to finally get rid of FileZilla ... :)

Thank you so much again for implementing FTP support.


Joe

By the way, I am the author "KB" in these thread,
https://winscp.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=197


I understand that many ISP still provides ftp upload services. But it is a clear trend they also provides sftp upload aside with ftp.

The barrier is probably that it need slightly more work for ISP engineers to turn off ssh shell logins yet remains sftp or scp file transfer. I say slightly because I know exactly how to do it, in several ways. It is more work to configure a chrooted sftp-only server than to configure an ftp server for uploading, but not *that* much more. And even this slight difficulty is fading away, with the open-sourced software becoming more friendly on one hand; and with the compentence of ISP engineers growing on the other hand.

And WebDAV (which is based on http, a much better protocol than ftp) is maturing quickly. It is very easy to setup a secure WebDAV server over SSL to allow authenticated uploading, with very fine level of access controls. The current issue for WebDAV to replace authenticated ftp uploading is on the client side. Now if a low-cost, user-friendly WebDAV client appears ...

So, yes, I believe the day of ftp is counted.

Okey, good to hear both passive and active modes are supported, and automatic transfer resuming, and utf-8. But what's next?

I believe these ftp-specific features will be requested if not already, sooner or later:
- ftp over ssl
- firewall detection, for both the client machine (i.e., localhost) and the ftp server, in order to determine which mode is to be used;
- automatic switch between active and passive mode upon the firewall detection;
- user can define or select the range of ftp data port;
- file type detection, on both client and server. Just based on filename suffixes? that would be very inaccurate. If not rely on filename suffixes, how to do it on client since Windows lacks such utility as "file"? how to detect the type of file on server if not relying on filename suffixes? Download a copy and detect it locally? Incoprate a unix "file" utility into WinSCP? I believe it will be difficult for WinSCP to detect file types correctly and efficiently. In the end it may be the only practical solution to keep a copy of hard record based on filename suffixes;
- automatic switching between ASCII and BINARY transfer mode upon file type detection;
- built-in functionity to convert DOS format to UNIX formart and vice verce;
- fxp support for server-to-server transfer, some user may require this as it is faster than server1-to-client and then client-to-server2 combined;
- fxp over ssl, clever handling of certificates, etc
- multi-thread transfer, in particular ftp download;
- some ftp server are configured so that directory contents are not list-able, users may require WinSCP to handle this situation in their preferred ways (thus arguments may occur);
- edit in cache. Due to difference between ftp and sftp, for ftp, this has to be two seperate transfers, i.e., download a full copy -> edit -> upload the modified copy and overwrite. Then how WinSCP is going to do to make it feel like edit "in cache"? another design and coding headache;
- windows registry hacking to associate WinSCP with ftp://, ftps://, fxp://, etc;
...


And here are some other feature requests, not specific to ftp and not related to currently focused on sftp+scp, following the logical user requests:
- smb:// support, may be make it dual-panel as well, that alone will open another can of warms;
- rsync support, average users don't care the technical difference, they think these are all file transfer anyway;
- http download, similiar logical
- http upload with WebDAV, the same
- and over TLS/SSL
...


So what are you going to do? Bow to these user requests and implement them all?

My understadning is FileZilla has a much large team and it covers sftp+ftp (no scp), and it is cross-platform. Maybe FileZilla v3 will be release soon which looks promising.

WinSCP, to my best understanding, is a really nice add-on to PuTTY, well, maybe used to be. It covered sftp+scp and is a Windows only application. Now v4 add ftp support. Is the ftp support as complete as FileZilla for now? Is WinSCP going to cross-platform like FileZilla?

My point is that it maybe useful for WinSCP has a design goal and clear vision, instead of directed by arbitary user requests and go to nowhere.

I still believe there is a position for an graphical sftp+scp and *only* sftp+scp program. And there will be a gap if this position is not filled.

Kill Bill wrote:

*) Because ftp is a totally different beast to sftp, and adding ftp support is like to open a can of warm to WinSCP;
Then what about ftp over ssl? then what about fxp support? then what about active and passive modes? automatic fallback from active mode to passive? what about user-decided port range? what about automatic resuming of transfer? what about UTF-8 support? how to deal with ftp sites that by dafault won't list directory contents? etc, ect, etc,
All these will come to feature-request list one day, what are you going to do with them then? Bow to these requests again and add them all? One day user may request you to add smb:// support, http:// support, vfs://support, behavior like Norton-Command/Midnight Command, ... and ultimately like a dual-panel file manager, and even replace Windows Explorer, ... even to replace the OS? I am not joking, some user already fiddling with WinSCP as a file manager, look at this forum.

You are perfectly right. Unfortunately my anticipation few years ago, that world would get rid of FTP for good was not fulfilled. Hence I was convinced to implement it at least particularly.
BTW, note that passive/active modes are implemented. As well as resuming and UTF-8 support.

I wish WinSCP v3 will still be mainteined at least, for bug-fixing, fine-tuning, tracing the upstream PuTTY version, etc, etc.

What's the reason? I believe that v4 has no disadvantage comparing with v3, apart from being larger by few hundreds KiB.

Right now PuTTY v0.60 has been released and WinSCP v3.8.2 is still with v0.58.

This has nothing to do with v4. WinSCP uses patched version of PuTTY with GSSAPI (Kerberos) support, which is not available for v0.59/0.60 yet. So either I stick with 0.58 or drop GSSAPI.

What is WinSCP heading for? Will there be a WinSCP Lite version that only does sftp/scp? or just continue support WinSCP v3 as a legacy project?

Again, why?

Sometimes I don't quite standand, I can turn the user interface of FilZilla almost identical to the default looking of WinSCP with few mouse clicks, why would so many users not to go with FileZilla for their crying-for, desired unified program for both ftp/sftp, instead they keep begging WinSCP to add ftp support, which is not its design goal.

I do not agree. You cannot turn FileZilla to WinSCP. Maybe visually. WinSCP is keyboard-oriented application, while FileZilla is mouse-oriented. That's great difference.

I am not claiming FillZilla covers 100% what WinSCP provides, but most of users requesting ftp support here just need a unified program for both ftp and sftp file transfer, with a nice GUI, which I believe FileZilla perfectly meets the requirement.

That's true. But I believe that people are really switching from WinSCP to FileZilla and vice versa. But because their UI is different.

Sorry if I sounds like a geek, I really don't mean that...

BUT honestly I am a bit disapponited to watch WinSCP adding ftp support.

*) Because ftp is a totally different beast to sftp, and adding ftp support is like to open a can of warm to WinSCP;
Then what about ftp over ssl? then what about fxp support? then what about active and passive modes? automatic fallback from active mode to passive? what about user-decided port range? what about automatic resuming of transfer? what about UTF-8 support? how to deal with ftp sites that by dafault won't list directory contents? etc, ect, etc,
All these will come to feature-request list one day, what are you going to do with them then? Bow to these requests again and add them all? One day user may request you to add smb:// support, http:// support, vfs://support, behavior like Norton-Command/Midnight Command, ... and ultimately like a dual-panel file manager, and even replace Windows Explorer, ... even to replace the OS? I am not joking, some user already fiddling with WinSCP as a file manager, look at this forum.
This means for a specific piece of software there is a definately design goal, any arbitary feature beyond that goal will NOT be implemented.
Remember that ACDSee that used to be graphics viewer and that finally trying to become a universe file viewer/player for all graphics/sound/movie files? How many people now appreciate the latest ACDSee the bloatware?

*) Because there exists a place in this world for a SFTP/SCP and only SFTP/SCP program with a nice graphical UI. PuTTY doesn't fill this gap (it is command-line only); FileZilla doesn't fill it (it is SFTP+FTP); WinSCP the old version fills the position nicely, but unfortunately not any more with the v4.0 line. So for now the world will have a gap if v3 of WinSCP will not be mainteined.

I wish WinSCP v3 will still be mainteined at least, for bug-fixing, fine-tuning, tracing the upstream PuTTY version, etc, etc. Right now PuTTY v0.60 has been released and WinSCP v3.8.2 is still with v0.58.

What is WinSCP heading for? Will there be a WinSCP Lite version that only does sftp/scp? or just continue support WinSCP v3 as a legacy project?


Sometimes I don't quite standand, I can turn the user interface of FilZilla almost identical to the default looking of WinSCP with few mouse clicks, why would so many users not to go with FileZilla for their crying-for, desired unified program for both ftp/sftp, instead they keep begging WinSCP to add ftp support, which is not its design goal.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I do suspect this is no more than a user laziness. It likes a baby cries all the time if you don't feed him/her, don't change his/her nappies, don't play with him/her, etc. The fact is that FileZilla is already for him/her to grab, for free, and can do almost everything that they cry WinSCP to be, except a few mouse clicks. I am not claiming FillZilla covers 100% what WinSCP provides, but most of users requesting ftp support here just need a unified program for both ftp and sftp file transfer, with a nice GUI, which I believe FileZilla perfectly meets the requirement.

artit wrote:

I'm not sure if you intentionally left this out, but you could have WinSCP associates itself as the default handler of ftp:// urls as well, as it does with sftp and scp.

I've just wan't sure if it is good idea to remove the default explorer handler.

pinkgothic wrote:

Wow. Wowowowowow. I mean, WOW.

Yes, it's so bad that intelligent words cannot describe my joy! Only yesterday, I was lamenting on how unfortunate it was that I had to use FileZilla and not WinSCP for my FTP needs... and I lazily meandered over to winscp.com, not really truly believing you would have FTP support by now (since I'm aware that is simply not what WinSCP is designed for)... and imagine my surprise! Holy cow, you've never seen FileZilla uninstalled faster.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...! *swoon*

Maybe you're not aware of what a gem you have here... so, let me break it to you with two phrases: "keep remote directory up to date" and "synchronise browsing".

Truly, words can't describe how happy this makes me. As soon as I stop being piss poor (I'm a student and only just donated to another cause - silly me), you're getting a huge wad of money for being awesome. Ohgod. Bliss. *fangirls all over WinSCP and goes spamfest her friends about the great news*

Thanks :-)

Maybe you're not aware of what a gem you have here... so, let me break it to you with two phrases: "keep remote directory up to date" and "synchronise browsing".

To me it's the neat, well-integrated native user interface, in-place editing, explorer view and seamless drag & drop. Thanks a million for your hard work!

I'm not sure if you intentionally left this out, but you could have WinSCP associates itself as the default handler of ftp:// urls as well, as it does with sftp and scp.

Wow. Wowowowowow. I mean, WOW.

Yes, it's so bad that intelligent words cannot describe my joy! Only yesterday, I was lamenting on how unfortunate it was that I had to use FileZilla and not WinSCP for my FTP needs... and I lazily meandered over to winscp.com, not really truly believing you would have FTP support by now (since I'm aware that is simply not what WinSCP is designed for)... and imagine my surprise! Holy cow, you've never seen FileZilla uninstalled faster.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...! *swoon*

Maybe you're not aware of what a gem you have here... so, let me break it to you with two phrases: "keep remote directory up to date" and "synchronise browsing".

Truly, words can't describe how happy this makes me. As soon as I stop being piss poor (I'm a student and only just donated to another cause - silly me), you're getting a huge wad of money for being awesome. Ohgod. Bliss. *fangirls all over WinSCP and goes spamfest her friends about the great news*

cerano wrote:

I just used the FTP connection in the beta release. Very nice work. It's great to have a unique interface to all SFTP and FTP servers at once. I don't think that the world needs any other Windows FTP client than yours

Thanks :-)

I just used the FTP connection in the beta release. Very nice work. It's great to have a unique interface to all SFTP and FTP servers at once. I don't think that the world needs any other Windows FTP client than yours

Thanks and congratulations for a great piece of work

Guest wrote:

Will are you support FTPS ?

It is not planned yet. Now has ever asked for that so far :-)

Will are you support FTPS ?

DaveVT5 wrote:

It's been a few months since this thread has had any activity. Is there an ETA on when we might expect to see some FTP support?

ok, forget the "few months" part. I must be crazy & didn't see the last bunch of posts :oops:

It's been a few months since this thread has had any activity. Is there an ETA on when we might expect to see some FTP support?

Will it be possible to edit files "in place" on server also with FTP-protocol?

Sure :-)

Thanks in advance for FTP support! :D Will donate as soon as new version is released.

Will it be possible to edit files "in place" on server also with FTP-protocol? Probably yes, just want to know for sure. Then I won't buy other product now but better save the money and donate it to you after release.

To hear that FTP will be supported in the next release is excellent news! This is the best interface and will lend a lot of additional flexibility to the software. I'll be sure to donate what I have been paying for the paid versions!

aakoch wrote:

I just want to say that this news makes me very happy! I love WinSCP's interface and have been lucky enough to have a host that allows me shell access so I can use it. But I'm thinking of switching hosts and they don't want to hand out shell access willy-nilly. I can't wait for FTP support! Everyone donate so he knows we want this feature!

You do not need a shell access to use WinSCP, if you use SFTP and the server is properly configured.

I just want to say that this news makes me very happy! I love WinSCP's interface and have been lucky enough to have a host that allows me shell access so I can use it. But I'm thinking of switching hosts and they don't want to hand out shell access willy-nilly. I can't wait for FTP support! Everyone donate so he knows we want this feature!

I have to say I'm blown away by how insanely cool, reliable, comfortable, and easy-to-use WinSCP is.. and to say how much I depend on it... and to say how greatful I am for it..

Thank you, Martin.

Anonymous wrote:

I have to say I'm blown away by the lack of support for FTP. I used to be a SmartFTP user, but the constant reminders to register were simply getting too much. Since then I've been looking for a perfect FTP client and someone told me about yours. The interface and features are unmatched in WinSCP, but when I tried to connect to my home FTP, at first I thought I was going crazy and couldn't belive there wouldn't be support for such an obvious feature... very, very disheartening... I only have need for SFTP when connecting to client servers, which is 1% of the time... such a shame an app this great will go to waste :(

*whispers* i need ftp too *puppy eyes*
*whimpers* sorry *tries to look guilty and innocent at the same time*
*yells* I LOVE YOU MARTIN!

lol, anyway.. thanks for what's there... a really great app.

Hopefully, FTP support will be included in the next release.

thank you, it may be unsecure but it should be in winSCP.

Random Admirer wrote:

I can't say how extremely happy I am to hear that. Seriously.

WinSCP is, honestly, the world's BEST file transfer client I have ever used, and that's not exaggerating. There is nothing I want that it cannot do, and it does them elegantly. The UI makes perfect sense for people like me who HATE Norton-Commander-style splitting, which, annoyingly, is the only way to do it in most FTP clients. The only catch was that most of my clients do not provide SFTP nor SCP to work with, and I'm stuck with FileZilla. I can rant on for pages and pages about how FileZilla is probably the world's worst FTP client, with extremely poor Windows integration and not even drag-and-drop support, but there's no point since I'm removing it from my computer now and forever.

Thank you once again for the best new-year gift ever. Literally can't wait for the next version. Enjoy your holidays.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I currently have Filezilla portable floating around to fill the gap and the sooner I can transfer all my sites to WinSCP the better!

martin wrote:

Hopefully, FTP support will be included in the next release.

SWEETNESS!

I can't say how extremely happy I am to hear that. Seriously.

WinSCP is, honestly, the world's BEST file transfer client I have ever used, and that's not exaggerating. There is nothing I want that it cannot do, and it does them elegantly. The UI makes perfect sense for people like me who HATE Norton-Commander-style splitting, which, annoyingly, is the only way to do it in most FTP clients. The only catch was that most of my clients do not provide SFTP nor SCP to work with, and I'm stuck with FileZilla. I can rant on for pages and pages about how FileZilla is probably the world's worst FTP client, with extremely poor Windows integration and not even drag-and-drop support, but there's no point since I'm removing it from my computer now and forever.

Thank you once again for the best new-year gift ever. Literally can't wait for the next version. Enjoy your holidays.

Awesome! Finally we will be able to use one app to handle ftp & scp! And the *one app* will definitely be winscp! Great!

Hopefully, FTP support will be included in the next release.

The FTP support is a *must*! Consider that: I've been looking for a client that can connect through SFTP/SCP and FTP and edit files remote on the server (without having to close the file in editor, just SAVING it - like winSCP works now). And guess what - I didn't find anything suitable.

I know it's a hard work, coding programs, especially when You do it for free. We really appreciate this, but if You decide to do it, do it for *us* and not for Yourself :)

Regards,
Michael

Having legacy FTP support built in or as an addon would make WinSCP, which I currently simply CANNOT live without Very Happy, the single most useful tool I currently have installed on my Winblows box

Absolutely, 100% true.

When I installed WinSCP yesterday, I immediately wanted to use it as my standard FTP-client as well. Would donate at least $20 if this will be available in future.

Artem Tashkinov wrote:

FTP is very unsecure protocol and should be used only for public (anonymous) ftp servers. Otherwise it's dangerous and outdated protocol

Or perhaps communication inside a corporate firewall?

I too would like to see FTP support. While it's true that vendors SHOULD offer SCP or SFTP support, I've had to pull teeth to get many of the ones I deal with to do so...

(Send a file daily via... what... e-mail!!!... I'm happy to have FTP at a minimum...)

I'm happy to use the scripting support in place of a full blown API. (Fed up with Cute FTP right about now... Dialog Boxes popping up when using an api? bad...) But, I don't want to "Figure out" two different applications in order to use both...

EXCELLENT Product... Please please add FTP... That would make it PERFECT, and I'll surely donate... Thanks!

Very pleased to hear that. Who would like to take on that project of adding FTP support?

--Rob.

WinSCP code has been re-factored recently to allow non-SSH-based transfer protocols. Now I can at least start thinking about adding FTP support. Definitely, I'm not going to implement it myself. I can think about "stealing" FTP from another open source project.

I think the problem is, all of us winscp lovers know that ftp sucks... but many hosts still do not. So we would love to use the same GUI that is so rockin in winscp to make our quick jaunts to junky ftp sites without having to switch tools. Filezilla is allright, but nothing compared to winscp. If someone could tack it on, even unofficially, it would be greatly appreciated.

As a side note, we had a big discussion about this at work and you would be surprised how many IT folks are unaware that winscp cannot use standard FTP.

You can set their shell to the sftp-server binary and it will work without granting them specific shell access....

Hate to add to a collective broken record, but I too would really like to see FTP support. Sure, I use a more secure option using WinSCP whenever possible, but sometimes it's not possible and FTP must be relied upon. It'd be awesome if WinSCP could offer at least rudimentary FTP support in these cases.

Of course I appreciate that it is a very different world and it's probably not something anyone really wants to work on as a priority. I'm just making sure my vote is out there. :shock:

martin wrote:

That's not about SFTP protocol. It is just dumb thing from implementers of SFTP protocol in OpenSSH server.

It's actually no problem at all to configure OpenSSH to use the "rssh" tool, which gets rid of the requirement to provide the user shell access. I own a few servers to which several of my customers have access, but all of them are only allowed to use SCP/SFTP clients to connect to these servers. No FTP service and no shell access for these users either. You'll find a nice tutorial on how to configure this in the Gentoo-Wiki (with the additional feature of having the SFTP server completely chroot'ed) ... see here (<invalid hyperlink removed by admin>)

However, it would be really nice if WinSCP had a plugin system which would allow to write plugins for other protocols as well such as rsync, ftp etc.

Anonymous wrote:

I'd have loved to see FTP support to use the directory synchronise feature among others.

Maybe :-)

I am greately disappointed to learn that SFTP requires shell access, and I think it's really dumb thing to do from the SFTP protocol designers.

That's not about SFTP protocol. It is just dumb thing from implementers of SFTP protocol in OpenSSH server.

And yeah, asking for FTP support IS a compliment :)

I'd have loved to see FTP support to use the directory synchronise feature among others.

As said before, even the biggest hosting providers dont provide SFTP. I am greately disappointed to learn that SFTP requires shell access, and I think it's really dumb thing to do from the SFTP protocol designers.

I also thought FTP would be easy to implement, but it all depends how many abstraction layers the coders used.

I agree with all of you that this program is great. I would like every open source program is this good. But come on, this program is open source. That means the source is available. So for everybody who wants FTP support, the code is free, so implement it yourself!

Having legacy FTP support built in or as an addon would make WinSCP, which I currently simply CANNOT live without :D, the single most useful tool I currently have installed on my Winblows box :shock:

Honestly, I have yet to find a gui ftp app that can match the genius WinSCP gui simplicity.

Please consider adding support!

some providers ban ssh protocol, as you have the ability to tunnel!!!

1) If it can support SFTP & SCP, I don't think that supporting FTP would be such a problem - I believe that SFTP & SCP are a lot more complicated than FTP.
2) It is true that FTP is insecure - yet 2 commercial providers out of 2 I've tried out don't support SFTP. They do support it somewhat - but after logon, they "refuse" to accept "shell connection" (?!) I had to do some work on one, and the other that was for personal stuff was the only one I could afford. I was stuck with Total Commander which IMHO is much much worse than WinSCP.
3) No other free ftp client has such great set of features & has such great interface - all others have pretty instraightforward interface or very bad keyboard support or ugly fonts and I don't think that any of those that can be put on USB stick supports F4 - remote file editor ;)

PLEASE add ftp support, oh PLEASE!!

FlashFXP

Oh yeah, the source code is available to those of you that want FTP so give it a whirl.

If you need raw FTP so bad, use Internet Explorer...

simply type ftp://username@servername in the address, press Enter and you'll be connected in the manner you require.

In general I agree...old school FTP support would be *greatly* appreciated.

I understand FTP is a suck-protocol, but often the person at the client end doesn't get to demand something better.

Naively, it seems like it would be "easier" to code than SFTP...but I might be misunderestimating how many different interactions need to be coded.

I'd say write now the key advantage over FileZilla is that it doesn't seem to support drag and drop from Windows explorer, insisting people use an old school two pane view ala WS-FTP in the bad old days. Hell, I'd rather use IE's built-in FTP than that.

At any rate, thank you for WinSCP overall. It's a very nice app.

How about making winscp as a plug in to mozilla firefox, theres already a great plugin for ftp.

You don't see how it could be that hard???? It's a completely different protocol. WinSCP is streamlined for SFTP/SCP, which are all derived from SSH. FTP is completely different. Every call to a transfer, connection, or feature would require a separate implementation for FTP, and it is very possible that WinSCP wasn't designed to allow for that kind of flexibility, and surely PuTTY wasn't, which is the backbone for the connection handling in WinSCP.

Without knowing the code intimately like Martin, I can still say with reasonable assurance that this would be a *huge* undertaking, not a weekend project. There are alternatives out there. I know they may not be as good as WinSCP's interface, but jeez... give the guy a break. He's only one man.

somebody should just write a plugin for winSCP making it FTP usable, cuz unlike what was said earlyer, scp or SFTP is NOT always prefurred or even allowed by hosters

I must agree with Thlayli. It would be really great to be able to use the great features of WinSCP when only FTP is available on the remote server.

Artem Tashkinov wrote:

FTP is very unsecure protocol and should be used only for public (anonymous) ftp servers. Otherwise it's dangerous and outdated protocol

Unfortunately many virtual hosting providers do not support SFTP as it would require them to enable SSH shell access and they're too lazy to lock things down. I just don't see how this can be that hard a feature to add. We all know FTP is horribly simple and unsecure, that's exactly why it should be simple to drop in.

The main development team is undoubtedly busy refining the best SFTP program on Earth but is there really nobody else willing to create a build with FTP support?

LordMyschkin wrote:

The problem is that the UI if Winscp is so ingenious that all we wish is an FTP-Client whith the same interface.
It is a pity that noone writes an FTP-client as good as WinSCP.
Although I understand Prikryl: Writing a perfect SCP/SFTP-Client is enough of a task, someone else should write the perfect FTP-Client.
Prikryl, I hope you see that ever-lasting feature request as a compliment like I do.
Regards!
Lew Myschkin

WibSCP is fantastic I use it to connect to our Linux PCs and load updates in our IPCop firewall but for plain vanilla you will find many free or cheap shareware FTP clients some have very good interfaces

Fillezilla is excellent and is licensed GPL ie free as air.
FTP Explorer is also first class but is shareware although free for educational use.

For automated back up via FTP to an internal server I use Cobian Backup V6 -- again first class GPL freeware The writer Louis Cobian intends to add more secure protocols in later versions.

I can also recommend Filezila (GPL)for general FTP transfers it is very good for SCP also but not as good as WinSCP. 8)

FTP is very unsecure protocol and should be used only for public (anonymous) ftp servers. Otherwise it's dangerous and outdated protocol

LordMyschkin wrote:

Prikryl, I hope you see that ever-lasting feature request as a compliment like I do.

:-)

The problem is that the UI if Winscp is so ingenious that all we wish is an FTP-Client whith the same interface.
It is a pity that noone writes an FTP-client as good as WinSCP.
Although I understand Prikryl: Writing a perfect SCP/SFTP-Client is enough of a task, someone else should write the perfect FTP-Client.
Prikryl, I hope you see that ever-lasting feature request as a compliment like I do.
Regards!
Lew Myschkin

For those that want a free FTP client, why don't you try FileZilla. It also has SFTP support.

https://filezilla-project.org/

I'd just like to pipe in that I'd really appreciate this feature as well.

WinSCP isn't intended to be an FTP client, and thus, that isn't an "obvious feature".

Most hosting providers should allow you to use SCP or SFTP instead of FTP anyway. It's preferred, in fact, since FTP is less secure, and is just another point of vulnerability to have an FTP daemon running in addition to SSH...

I have to say I'm blown away by the lack of support for FTP. I used to be a SmartFTP user, but the constant reminders to register were simply getting too much. Since then I've been looking for a perfect FTP client and someone told me about yours. The interface and features are unmatched in WinSCP, but when I tried to connect to my home FTP, at first I thought I was going crazy and couldn't belive there wouldn't be support for such an obvious feature... very, very disheartening... I only have need for SFTP when connecting to client servers, which is 1% of the time... such a shame an app this great will go to waste :(

No plans for this.

can you add support for ftp please :mrgreen: