Not just deprecated, but deleted: Google finally strips File Transfer Protocol code from Chrome browser
- Reference: 1634735231
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/10/20/ftp_chrome_95/
- Source link:
It has been a while coming. A lack of support for encrypted connections in Chrome's FTP implementation, coupled with a general disinterest from the majority of the browser's users, and more capable third-party alternatives being available has meant that the code has moved from deprecated [2]to gone entirely .
Support for fetching document resources over FTP was stripped from Chrome 72, proxy support for FTP was removed in Chrome 76, and Chrome 86 introduced a flag to turn it off completely.
[3]
In between 76 and 86, Google tinkered with deprecation, [4]backing away in the first half of 2020 in response to the pandemic and the workload faced by hardpressed IT crews. However, the writing was on the wall for the venerable protocol.
[5]
[6]
By version 88 it was disabled for all users, but still could be switched back on. Now the code to support it has at last been removed once and for all, [7]a little later than hoped .
[8]Want to support Firefox? Great, you'll have no problem with personalised, sponsored search suggestions then
[9]In a complete non-surprise, Mozilla hammers final nail in FTP's coffin by removing it from Firefox
[10]If my calculations are correct, when Google Chrome hits version 88, you're gonna see some serious... security
[11]Oh ... Fudge This Pandemic! Google walks back on decision to switch off FTP in Chrome 81
Mozilla dumped the protocol from its Firefox browser [12]back in July , and Apple doesn't really support it in Safari.
As for Microsoft, while its Edge browser might be based on Chromium, there is always Internet Explorer, which should still do the business should you have a need for a bit of browser-based retro file-transfer action. And few browsers deserve the retro tag as much as IE, even if Microsoft is [13]determined to kill it off in most forms next year.
As for why FTP has attracted such ire – well, the protocol is over 50 years old and comes from more innocent times, when authentication was not what it is today. More secure options now exist (such as FTPS and SFTP) and, frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app than bother maintaining the code in the browser.
[14]
There remain a good few FTP sites out there (such as the [15]US Census Bureau ), although many now have alternatives for file transfer. The final ejection of the code from Chrome, which lays claim to a huge userbase, means it really is time to move on. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://chromestatus.com/roadmap
[2] https://chromestatus.com/feature/6246151319715840
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YXA9PTsk@dwYkkfMm4UR0gAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/15/ftp_chrome_deprecation_on_hold/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YXA9PTsk@dwYkkfMm4UR0gAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YXA9PTsk@dwYkkfMm4UR0gAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JUra5HnsbR_xmtQctkb2iVxRPuhPWhMB5M_zpbuGxTY/edit
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/08/mozilla_adding_sponsored_search_results/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/21/firefox_ends_ftp_support/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/19/chrome_88_manifestv3/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/15/ftp_chrome_deprecation_on_hold/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/21/firefox_ends_ftp_support/
[13] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/faq/internet-explorer-microsoft-edge#what-is-the-lifecycle-policy-for-internet-explorer-
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YXA9PTsk@dwYkkfMm4UR0gAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/data-via-ftp.html
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
Of course they would - it's proprietary and capable of silent snooping.
SFTP is the fastest and simpest way to maintain a web site - far more convenient than the clunky file managers in abortions such as cPanel.
Re: "frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
It's going to be sold as "an upgrade" ... they are upgrading their access to our data.
Re: "frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
SFTP is almost nothing like FTP and was never supported by Chrome or Firefox.
Re: "frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
" SFTP is almost nothing like FTP and was never supported by Chrome or Firefox. "
Yes. As the article stated " A lack of support for encrypted connections in Chrome's FTP implementation ... "
So rather than implement the secure protocol they abandon the facility entirely in favour of a certainly proprietary and almost certainly opaque tool.
Re: "frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
They have HTTPS, a secure protocol that can be used for file download. They don't need FTP as well. And browsers supported FTP for file downloads, not uploads.
Re: "frankly, Google and pals would rather users opted for a dedicated transfer app"
SFTP is almost nothing like FTP
Agreed. However FTPS (port 990 with non-PASV data on 989) theoretically existed.
The big question is, has anyone actually seen FTPS in the wild?
I hope KDE don't follow suit with kio-slaves". I have an ancient but still functional Buffallo NAS device on my home LAN. My Brother all in one device saves scans to it. Older versions of KDE would let me open that via SMB but the device was SMB2 and support for that was dropped. However FTP access is still an option. I could add the functionality elsewhere but it would be another make-work to replace something that is good enough in its context . If someone can eavesdrop on my home LAN I have bigger problems than sending plain text passwords to see my scans.
* Are they still allowed to call them that?
I don't see why they would, but you could use FUSE to mount the FTP server.
You can't sell Advertising
over FTP.
Re: You can't sell Advertising
You probably can. Put it in the README file in the FTP directory, and it will be displayed to a client on connection...
Re: You can't sell Advertising
The problem is that it's not google doing the selling
Plenty of other choices for when you need to use it and on the plus side, less clutter in the browser.
Perhaps it might even reduce the amount of RAM that Chrome seems to want to suck ... well, one can hope.
Alternative FTP options include
Another browser
Linux command line ftp, and wget can do ftp too (but curl can't)
Windows command line but no PASV iirc ??
WinSCP
BitKinex
and a million other possibilities
So....
One more reason to avoid Chrome. Not that the list wasn't long enough already.
Overkill for many sites
I always recommend using appropriate security and most of the time, you do not need sftp.