UFT does a fine job of transfering files between my legacy and IFL system s, but to use it between our home site and the recovery site (vendor or new internal site), encryption of data will have to be considered.
/Tom Kern /301-903-2211 On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:22:00 -0500, Rick Troth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...snippes... >> Do the alternate protocols mentioned (MSP/MSGD, UFT) >> provide secure communications? Are there >> SSL-supporting clients available for VM? > >UFT intentionally left encryption (and compression) >outside of the protocol. The idea was that it was/is "hookable". >Within that same certain context, UFT is really quite safe. >Even outside of your warm safe and cozy intranet, UFT doesn't need >authentication, by design. (It was designed to do what FTP doesn't. >It was designed to work like RSCS. It invents a spool space on Unix.) > >-- R; >======================== ========================= ========================
