Need a secure FTP alternative for small business file sharing

Mac
1

I’m looking for a secure, reliable alternative to traditional FTP for my small business. We share large files with clients and partners, but our old FTP server is slow, hard to manage, and raising security concerns after a recent audit. I need recommendations for easy-to-use, business-friendly tools or platforms that support user permissions, audit logs, and strong encryption without being overly complex or expensive.

2

If you’re finally ditching plain old FTP, you’re not overreacting. It really is that bad for anything remotely sensitive. Passwords in clear text, data in clear text, auditors glaring at you like you just plugged a USB stick from 2007 into a production server. It had its time; that time is over.

Here’s how I ended up handling it, plus what I wish someone had told me earlier.

The “what should I use instead?” part

SFTP: the option that actually makes sense

SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is what most people really want when they say “secure FTP.” It runs over SSH, which you’re probably already using to log into servers.

How it behaves in real life:

  • Everything is encrypted: credentials, data, metadata, all of it.
  • One port only: usually 22. Your firewall person will not hate you for this.
  • Automates cleanly: great for cron jobs, scripts, CI/CD, backup routines, etc.

If you ever wrote a script that used scp or rsync over SSH, moving to SFTP is just a small mental step sideways. Same trust model, similar tools, much nicer for structured file workflows.

Use this if:

  • You control both ends, or can ask the other side to support SFTP.
  • You care about security and audit logs.
  • You want something that will still make sense 5 years from now.

FTPS: for when the past refuses to die

FTPS is just old FTP wrapped in SSL/TLS. You get encryption, but you also still get FTP’s weirdness.

Reality check:

  • Pros:
    • Good for systems that only “speak FTP” but added SSL/TLS later.
    • Often supported by older appliances and apps that are painful to replace.
  • Cons:
    • Multiple ports for control + data.
    • Firewalls and NAT boxes can get real fussy.
    • Debugging connection issues can become an afternoon activity.

Use this if:

  • You’re stuck integrating with legacy vendors or appliances.
  • You can’t touch their side, only yours.
  • You accept that your firewall will occasionally throw a tantrum.

If you’re starting from scratch right now and have any choice at all: SFTP > FTPS.

How I stopped juggling 10 different server logins

This is the part that actually changed my daily workflow.

I got tired of:

  • Keeping 8+ sets of credentials in different apps.
  • Flipping between SFTP clients, browser tabs, and weird vendor tools.
  • Trying to remember which host had which folder, and where the logs lived.

So I ended up using CloudMounter. The basic idea: instead of treating servers as “connections” inside a separate app, it mounts them as if they were local drives.

What this actually feels like day to day:

  • In Finder (macOS) or File Explorer (Windows), you see your SFTP servers listed like extra disks.
  • You can click into them like normal folders.
  • Drag & drop works.
  • Your brain stops having to remember which client or bookmark to open for which box.

So instead of:

  • Opening some FTP client
  • Finding the right saved connection
  • Typing a password or hunting down a key
  • Navigating a nested path

You just:

  • Open Finder / Explorer
  • Click the mounted drive
  • Treat it like any other folder

If you’ve got a bunch of different environments (prod, staging, client servers, backup storage, random lab box you forgot about), this takes a lot of the friction out. It doesn’t magically fix bad architecture, but it does stop the “which tool do I need for this server again?” nonsense.

Why this setup didn’t suck for me

Putting it all together:

  • SFTP for anything new or anything I could influence.
  • FTPS only when some vendor contract or legacy box forced it.
  • CloudMounter to stop living inside 4 different file transfer tools and 3 sets of muscle memory.

End result: everything I care about shows up like normal folders on my machine, but the traffic is encrypted and scriptable. The old-school FTP mess is gone, the firewall rules are simpler, and I’m not babysitting connections all the time.

If you’re in that “we’re still on FTP but we know we shouldn’t be” phase, start with SFTP, and then make your life less annoying by mounting the servers as drives. The security people are happier, and so are you.

3 Likes
3

If the old FTP box is already freaking you out, don’t just swap it for “FTP but shinier.” @mikeappsreviewer covered SFTP/FTPS pretty well, so I’ll throw in a slightly different angle: you may not actually want another server at all.

For a small business that shares big files with clients, I’d look at it in layers:

1. Stop running infra you don’t need

Instead of “what secure FTP should I run,” ask “how do I avoid running anything at 2 a.m. when a disk dies.”

A few solid patterns:

a) S3-style object storage + pre-signed links

  • Use something like AWS S3, Backblaze B2, Wasabi, etc.
  • You upload files once, then generate time-limited download links for clients.
  • Entire transfer is over HTTPS, no FTP stack, no open ports to babysit.
  • Great for large files; the storage backend handles scale and throughput.

Drawbacks:

  • Less “simple folder” feel unless you add a sync client.
  • Non-technical clients might get confused if you don’t wrap it nicely.

b) Managed “file drop” services

Think of services where you can:

  • Create client-specific folders
  • Lock them to specific users or email addresses
  • Get notifications when files are uploaded/downloaded
  • Enforce expiration and password protection

This keeps you out of the “maintain server + patch OpenSSL” game entirely.

2. If you must stick to protocol‑style access

Here is where I slightly disagree with @mikeappsreviewer: going “SFTP everywhere” is great if your partners are somewhat technical. A lot of small-business clients are not. They just want to double-click stuff.

What works well in that case:

SFTP or WebDAV on the backend + drive-mounting on the desktop

  • Run a simple SFTP/WebDAV endpoint (or use a managed one).
  • Use a client that mounts it as a drive on your staff machines.

On macOS/Windows, CloudMounter actually shines here:

  • It turns SFTP, WebDAV, S3, etc. into regular drives in Finder / File Explorer.
  • Your team drags/drops files like local folders, but the traffic is encrypted and remote.
  • You can keep your “file server” in the cloud and not in the dusty closet.

This is particularly nice for large files: staff see it as a normal drive, but no one is RDP-ing into some random Windows box just to upload.

3. Client experience matters more than the protocol

From your side, SFTP or HTTPS or WebDAV is a security/ops decision.
From the client side, they only care about:

  • “Do I need to install some weird tool?”
  • “Can I click a link and get my file?”
  • “Is it fast and not timing out?”

So a hybrid flow works well:

  • Your internal workflow: SFTP / WebDAV / CloudMounter to manage files.
  • External sharing: pre-signed HTTPS links or secure portal for clients.

You keep strong security + logs internally, and the client just gets a clean link.

4. Practical mini‑setup that’s not a nightmare

One relatively simple stack:

  1. Use S3-compatible storage for your “vault” of files.
  2. Mount that storage on your machines with CloudMounter so your team just sees a drive.
  3. Use scripts or a tiny web tool to generate time-limited HTTPS links for clients.

No exposed FTP, no juggling user accounts for every client, and you can scale storage cheaply.

If you really want a direct FTP-style replacement, SFTP is the right default, sure. But if you’re already replacing things, this is a good time to get out of the “host and patch your own file server” business altogether and let cloud storage + a decent client do the heavy lifting.

4

You’ve already got solid protocol talk from @mikeappsreviewer and the “don’t run your own stuff if you don’t have to” angle from @hoshikuzu, so I’ll zig a bit.

If your old FTP box is slow and scary, the first question I’d ask is: do you actually need a “server people connect to,” or do you just need a predictable way to move big files around with some basic controls?

For small biz, I usually see three real‑world patterns that actually get used instead of ignored:

1. Shared cloud storage as “the new FTP”

Not sexy, but it works.

Think OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. Everyone knows how to click a folder and drag a file. Security is plenty good if you:

  • Enforce MFA on your accounts
  • Use per‑client folders
  • Use share links with:
    • Expiration
    • “View only” where possible
    • Passwords for anything sensitive

You get:

  • Version history
  • Web access
  • No port forwarding, no TLS configs, no late night patching

Downside: permissions can become a disaster if you let “anyone with the link” run wild. You need one adult in the room who owns the folder structure.

I actually disagree a bit with the “always use S3 + scripts” angle from @hoshikuzu for a non‑technical small biz. For a lot of teams that’s just a different category of pain.

2. A simple “client portal” instead of a protocol

If you want something more “professional looking” than random share links:

  • Use a portal-style tool: clients log in, see “their” files, upload/download
  • All traffic is HTTPS
  • You keep logs of who touched what and when
  • You can require strong passwords or SSO

There are a bunch of products in this category, but the key idea is:
Clients never hear “SFTP” or “FTPS” at all. They see a branded web page and use a browser.

For compliance-heavy stuff (accounting, legal, healthcare), this feels less sketchy than “here’s a link that expires in 7 days, don’t lose it.”

3. Hybrid: mapped drives for staff, links for clients

This is where CloudMounter is actually worth a look, and I’m not just echoing @mikeappsreviewer here.

Workflow that tends to work well:

  • Backend: SFTP, WebDAV, or cloud storage (S3, OneDrive, Google Drive, etc.)
  • On employee machines: install CloudMounter
  • Result: your remote storage shows up as a normal drive in Finder / File Explorer

So for your team:

  • They drag big files in/out like from a local network share
  • No need to train them on SFTP clients, bookmarks, etc.
  • No exposed oldschool FTP server to babysit

For your clients:

  • You share via HTTPS links or a lightweight portal on top of that storage
  • They never touch SFTP/WebDAV directly

This gives you:

  • Encryption in transit
  • Centralized storage
  • Minimal “IT hero at midnight” situations

What I’d actually do in your shoes

  1. Kill the old FTP server completely. Don’t “just harden it.” It’s not worth it.
  2. Pick one of:
    • Shared cloud storage if you want fast, simple, minimal setup
    • Client portal if you have compliance / auditing pressure
  3. For internal convenience, mount whatever you choose as a drive with something like CloudMounter so your staff doesn’t fight with weird clients.

You can absolutely go SFTP or S3 like @mikeappsreviewer and @hoshikuzu outlined, but if your users are already grumpy about the old FTP, simpler UX usually beats “correct” protocol design.

5

Skip hosting your own box entirely and use managed “secure file transfer as a service.” This is the middle ground between raw SFTP and consumer cloud links that the others touched on but did not lean into.

Think of services like “hosted SFTP + web portal + automation hooks.” Typical features:

  • SFTP / FTPS / HTTPS all terminate on their platform
  • Web UI for non‑technical clients
  • Easy user provisioning, per‑folder access, audit logs
  • Optional automations like auto‑delete after X days, email notifications, webhooks

This fixes your current issues:

  • Performance: their infra is usually far better than a DIY VPS
  • Security: they patch, handle TLS, rotate certs, and give you reporting
  • Management: you live in a browser, not in config files and firewall rules

Where I disagree a bit with @mikeappsreviewer: for a small business, “just run SFTP and wire up scripts” sounds simple until the person who set it up leaves. Hosted transfer platforms give you a UI your successor can understand.

You can still pair this with CloudMounter for your internal team:

Pros of CloudMounter

  • Mounts the hosted SFTP / WebDAV / cloud storage as a normal drive
  • Reduces training since staff use Finder or File Explorer
  • Lets you consolidate different backends in one place

Cons of CloudMounter

  • Extra dependency: client software on each workstation
  • Requires per‑device licensing and updates
  • Performance depends on local network stability and latency

Compared to what @hoshikuzu and @voyageurdubois are suggesting, this route trades some raw control for less babysitting and a nicer story for auditors and non‑technical clients. You get secure transfers, web portal access, and internal mounted drives, without being in the server business.