Looking for a secure, modern alternative to FTP for file transfers?

Mac
1

I’ve been using standard FTP for years to move files between my local machine and a remote server, but I’m getting worried about security and compatibility issues with newer systems. I’d really appreciate recommendations for safer, more reliable FTP alternatives, including which protocols or tools you use, how hard they are to set up, and any pros/cons you’ve run into.

2

Why I Finally Dropped FTP (And What I Use Now)

I hung onto FTP for way too long, mostly out of habit. It was one of those “if it ain’t totally broken, why fix it?” situations. Then I started actually looking at what was going over the wire and realized: oh, this thing is basically a postcard in the mail.

A few reasons FTP just doesn’t cut it anymore:

  • No built‑in encryption
    Everything, including usernames and passwords, flies around in plain text. Anyone in a position to sniff the traffic can see it.

  • Old protocol with weird quirks
    Active/passive modes, firewalls getting confused, random connection errors. It feels like juggling chainsaws whenever you change networks or VPNs.

  • Security is bolted on, not baked in
    You have to layer other tools or hacks on top to make it “kinda safe,” and even then it feels fragile.

Once I admitted FTP was the weak link, I went hunting for alternatives and ended up trying a few different paths.

What I Tried Instead of FTP

Here’s what I played with, in roughly the order I tested them.

SFTP

This is usually the first stop for anyone escaping FTP.

  • Uses SSH under the hood
    So traffic is encrypted by default, no extra magic required.

  • Same general idea as FTP
    Remote folders, file transfers, directory listings, all that. Most FTP clients also speak SFTP.

  • Good for servers and dev boxes
    Works well when you already have SSH access or are managing Linux servers.

Downside: it still feels very “tool-y.” You open a client, connect, drag files, disconnect. It’s fine, but it didn’t quite merge into my daily workflow the way I wanted.

Cloud Storage (Dropbox / Google Drive / S3, etc.)

Then I went the cloud route:

  • Dropbox
    Great for simple shared folders, auto-syncing between machines, easy for non-technical collaborators.

  • Google Drive
    Nice for documents and team stuff. The web UI is friendly, but working with large file trees or dev resources is clunky.

  • Amazon S3
    Rock solid for storage, backups, and static assets. But out of the box, the interface is not exactly user-friendly. You end up using specialized tools or command line utilities.

All of these are good at what they do: storage and sharing. Where they fall short for me is that they don’t feel like “just another drive” on my system without extra tools. Web UIs and sync folders are OK, but I wanted everything to behave like local storage no matter the provider.

WebDAV

I also experimented with WebDAV:

  • You can mount it like a network drive
    So it sort of replaces the idea of “FTP into a folder,” but with HTTP-based access instead.

  • Supported in lots of systems and apps
    Some backup tools and note apps still support WebDAV as a backend.

In practice, I found the performance hit noticeable when dealing with many small files, and some implementations are finicky. It felt like I’d swapped one set of quirks for another.

What I Actually Use Now

After juggling all those, I ended up building my workflow around cloud storage services but with one key tweak: I wanted them to appear as regular drives on my Mac, like FTP used to, just without the security dumpster fire.

That’s where CloudMounter came in for me.

I use it to mount different cloud services as if they were local disks. So instead of:

  1. Opening an FTP client
  2. Connecting to a server
  3. Dragging files in a cramped remote window

…I just open Finder and there it is: a mounted drive pointing at, say, S3 or Google Drive or whatever else I’m using.

How it fits into my workflow better than old-school FTP:

  • Feels native
    My editor, terminal, and apps see the mounted storage as a normal folder. No separate “transfer step.”

  • Central hub
    I can hook up multiple services (S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.) and access them all the same way, instead of juggling different apps or UIs.

  • Security baked in
    The actual connections to the services use modern, encrypted protocols, so I’m not leaking credentials all over the place like with classic FTP.

  • Similar convenience, fewer headaches
    I get the old “remote storage” feel that FTP gave me, but with modern authentication, encryption, and better integration with everything else on my machine.

To be clear, I’m not trying to hype it up as The One True Tool. It just genuinely solved that specific annoyance where I liked how simple FTP felt but hated how exposed and outdated it was. With CloudMounter, I get that same “just mount it and work” flow, only now it’s tied into cloud services and protected properly.

If someone’s still stuck on FTP out of habit, my actual recommendation would be:

  1. Use SFTP if you mainly work with servers and SSH already.
  2. Use cloud storage + a mounting tool like CloudMounter if you want everything to behave like local drives.

That combo pretty much replaced FTP completely for me, without losing the convenience that kept me using it in the first place.

10 Likes
3

If you’ve been on plain FTP for years, you’re absolutley right to be nervous. At this point it’s basically “telnet for files.”

Since @mikeappsreviewer already covered SFTP, WebDAV, and mounting cloud storage with CloudMounter, I’ll take a slightly different angle and focus on other secure options and how to actually pick between all of them.

1. FTPS (TLS‑secured FTP)

Everyone jumps straight to SFTP, but FTPS is worth mentioning:

  • Same basic commands and behavior as classic FTP
  • Adds TLS encryption (so credentials and data aren’t in plain text)
  • Works with a lot of legacy clients and scripts

Where it bites you:

  • Still inherits FTP’s ugly active/passive mess
  • Firewalls and NAT can be annoying
  • Some modern systems just don’t bother supporting it well anymore

Personally I only use FTPS if I’m forced to stay compatible with some old stack that “only talks FTP.” If you’re not locked in, I’d skip it and go to SFTP or something HTTP-based.

2. rsync over SSH

If you’re moving files between your machine and a Linux/Unix server:

  • Use rsync -avz -e ssh local/ user@server:/remote/
  • Only transfers changes, so it’s fast for repeated updates
  • Encrypted via SSH, like SFTP
  • Great for backups, deployments, code trees

Downsides:

  • Very CLI-centric; not as nice if you want drag & drop
  • Windows support is… possible, but clunky without WSL or extra tools

I actually prefer rsync over SFTP for regular sync jobs and deployments. SFTP is better when you want a visual file browser.

3. HTTPS‑based file transfer (simple web upload / APIs)

If the remote “server” is actually a web app or service you control, consider:

  • Exposing a simple HTTPS upload endpoint or using an existing one
  • Using tools like curl, rclone, or SDKs to push files
  • Authentication via tokens, OAuth, etc. instead of raw passwords

Pros:

  • Runs over port 443 so it plays nice with firewalls
  • TLS protects everything
  • Easier to integrate into modern apps and CI/CD than manual SFTP

Con:

  • Not as “browse a folder” friendly as FTP/SFTP
  • You have to build or adopt some tooling / UI

4. rclone + cloud storage

CloudMounter is great for mounting storage as a drive (agreed with @mikeappsreviewer there), but if you’re more script‑driven:

  • rclone supports S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, SFTP, WebDAV and a ton more
  • Has commands like rclone sync, rclone copy that feel like rsync for the cloud
  • Built‑in encryption option for client‑side encrypted storage

If you like automation and cron jobs, rclone plus a cloud provider is a strong, secure FTP replacement.

5. When CloudMounter actually makes sense

Some people treat “just use cloud” as a magic spell, which it is not. CloudMounter is specifically helpful when:

  • You want your remote stuff to look like a normal drive/folder
  • You bounce between S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.
  • Your editor / IDE works better with a mounted filesystem than with sync folders or web UIs

If you’re on macOS and you mostly want “the FTP feeling, without the 1990s security,” CloudMounter is honestly close to that: mount and work like it’s local, but over secure protocols.

If you’re purely doing server admin/dev work though, I’d argue SFTP + rsync beats any GUI mounting in terms of control and reliability.

How I’d choose, practically

  • Need a drop‑in replacement with GUI:
    SFTP in your existing FTP client, or CloudMounter if you like the “mounted drive” style.

  • Need scripted, repeatable syncs to a server:
    rsync over SSH.

  • Pushing to object storage / cloud:
    rclone or CloudMounter, depending on whether you’re more CLI or GUI.

  • Forced to stay “FTP-ish” for compatibility:
    FTPS, but treat it as a transitional step, not the final destination.

If you share a bit about your OS, whether you prefer GUI or CLI, and if your “remote server” is actually a VPS, shared hosting, or a cloud bucket, people here can probably narrow it down to one clear setup.

4

If you’ve been on plain FTP this long, you’ve basically been driving around with no seatbelt and bald tires. Functional, sure, but one pothole away from disaster.

Since @mikeappsreviewer and @techchizkid already covered SFTP, FTPS, rsync, rclone, etc., I’ll focus on how to think about replacing FTP instead of just listing the same tools.

Step 1: Decide what your “remote server” really is

You basically fall into one of these buckets:

  1. Classic Linux server with shell access
  2. Shared hosting / cPanel style environment
  3. Object storage or cloud (S3, GDrive, Dropbox, etc.)
  4. Some mix of all of the above, because of course

What you pick depends more on workflow than protocol.

If you’re editing & deploying code or configs

FTP is terrible for this anyway. You want:

  • A version control system plus a deploy method
  • Encrypted transport as a side effect, not the main feature

Practical combo:

  • Use git for the actual files
  • Use SSH for deployment:
    • git pull directly on the server, or
    • A small deploy script using rsync -e ssh

That replaces “open FTP, drag files” with “push to repo, run deploy,” which is both more secure and less error prone. SFTP is still fine for one‑off edits, but I’d stop using any FTP‑style tool as the primary deployment method.

Here I slightly disagree with the heavy reliance on SFTP as a permanent workflow like some people suggest. It’s a good bridge, but in 2025 it’s honestly more of a backup tool or emergency access than a core deployment pipeline.

If you just want a remote folder that feels local

This is where standard FTP felt nice and where both of the others brought up a good alternative.

Instead of:

  • Remote Linux box running FTP

Think:

  • Cloud storage or SFTP/WebDAV backend
  • Mounted locally as a drive

This is the exact scenario where something like CloudMounter makes sense:

  • You mount S3, Google Drive, SFTP, etc. as a disk
  • Apps see it like a normal folder
  • Connections use modern, encrypted protocols under the hood

If your brain is wired around “I open Finder / Explorer and there’s a remote drive,” CloudMounter is pretty much the least painful way to detox from FTP without changing your mental model.

If you’re stuck with old hosting

If you have some crusty shared hosting that only gives you FTP:

  1. Check the panel for SFTP or SSH access. Hosts hide it in weird places.
  2. If they only offer FTPS, use that as a short‑term bandage. At least it encrypts.
  3. Start planning to move. If the provider is still FTP‑only in 2025, that is a red flag.

Here I’ll 100% agree with both others: FTPS is not where you want to end up, it is just a way to not leak passwords everywhere while you migrate.

Quick decision guide

  • You manage a server and have SSH
    → Use SFTP for manual transfers, rsync over SSH or git based deploys for anything repeatable.

  • You want “like FTP, but safe and modern” with GUI
    → Use cloud storage or SFTP plus CloudMounter to mount it. Work as if it’s a local disk.

  • You like scripts and automation
    → Use rsync / rclone over SSH or HTTPS to whatever backend.

Bottom line: stop using plain FTP entirely. There is no modern situation where it is the right answer unless something is so legacy you’re already in trouble.

5

If you want to escape FTP without just re‑implementing the same old workflow, I’d approach it like this:

1. Clarify what “secure & modern” means for you

Security is not just encryption. For file transfer in 2025 you ideally want:

  • Encrypted in transit
  • Strong auth (keys, OAuth, or at least strong passwords + 2FA)
  • Easy revocation of access
  • Works behind NAT/VPN without weird port games
  • Reasonable logging/audit

Plain FTP fails almost all of that.

I actually disagree slightly with leaning too hard on SFTP as a long‑term one‑size‑fits‑all answer. It is solid, but it still keeps you stuck in a “manual pipe files around” mindset. Good as a foundational protocol, less great as your whole strategy.

2. Think in “workflows,” not protocols

Rough map:

  • Deploying or syncing project files
    → Git + SSH / rsync / CI deploy
  • Sharing or archiving data
    → Cloud storage (S3, Dropbox, Google Drive, etc.)
  • Daily “remote disk” usage
    → Mounted storage tools

What @techchizkid and @viaggiatoresolare described points in this direction already, and @mikeappsreviewer showed what it looks like in practice.

3. Where CloudMounter fits

Use case: you like “connect and see a remote drive” but do not want old FTP problems.

Pros of CloudMounter

  • Mounts many backends (S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, SFTP, WebDAV, etc.) as normal drives
  • Apps see remote storage like local folders, so editors, IDEs, terminals all work naturally
  • Uses the secure protocols provided by each service instead of raw FTP
  • Centralizes multiple accounts / services into one UI
  • Good bridge if you are used to an FTP client window but want something more OS‑native

Cons of CloudMounter

  • Requires a separate app layer, so there is an extra moving piece to trust and maintain
  • Performance depends on network and backend; large projects opened directly from cloud can feel slower than local + sync
  • Not ideal for heavily automated, headless workflows
  • License cost vs free CLI tools like rsync / rclone
  • Still not a proper “deployment system”; it is easy to fall back into drag‑and‑drop production edits

So I like CloudMounter as:

  • A daily‑driver replacement for “open FTP client, drag files”
  • A way to unify SFTP / S3 / Drive into a single mounted environment

I would not use it as the only mechanism to deploy app code.

4. Complementary stack that avoids old FTP completely

If you want something that feels modern and robust:

  1. For servers & code

    • Git for version control
    • Deployment via:
      • git pull over SSH on the server, or
      • CI pipeline that rsyncs over SSH
    • SFTP only for quick manual fixes or one‑off file grabs

  2. For general storage & sharing

    • Use a cloud backend you like (e.g. S3, Dropbox, Drive)
    • Mount it locally with CloudMounter so it behaves like a drive

  3. For automation / scripts

    • Use rsync or rclone over SSH / HTTPS for batch jobs, backup, or mirroring

5. Migration path from pure FTP

Concrete way to phase it out without breaking everything:

  1. Turn on SSH/SFTP on your server (or ask host). If you have only FTP, that is a red flag and you should plan a move.
  2. Swap your FTP client to SFTP first, just to get encryption.
  3. Introduce CloudMounter to mount SFTP and any cloud buckets you use, and start working from mounted drives instead of the old FTP client window.
  4. Over time, move recurring tasks (deploys, backups) into git + SSH or rsync, so interactive file shuffling becomes the exception rather than the rule.

This keeps the familiarity of “remote drive” usage, adds security, and gradually pulls you away from FTP habits rather than forcing a complete mental reset in one shot.