Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:29:26 -0500 From: Brian Reichert <reichert@numachi.com> To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xinetd vs. tcp_wrappers Message-ID: <19990325152926.G1474@numachi.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990325145000.00b63100@mason.gmu.edu>; from Erik Gault on Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 03:02:19PM -0500 References: <4.1.19990325145000.00b63100@mason.gmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 03:02:19PM -0500, Erik Gault wrote: > I was interested in tightening up the security on my FreeBSD system > and I'd read a bit about inetd not being particularly secure so I thought > I'd look into what the options were for replacing it or putting additional > software into place to improve the situation. I came across a number of > inetd "replacements" including xinetd, netpipes, ucspi-tcp, etc. and also > the tcp_wrappers program. FWIW, I'm using ucspi-tcp to handle things here. I've pulled inetd off of all our machines. Neither ucspi-tcp nor tcp_wrappers will launch UDP services, as far as I know. There are slight behavioral differences between them. Their respective authors seem to be in a feud, and there was a recent spat on BUGTRAQ about those differences. All of the tools listed solve differnent problem in sloghtly differeny ways; what are _your_ concerns? > > Erik > -- Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert reichert@numachi.com 37 Crystal Ave. #303 Current daytime number: (603)-434-6842 Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990325152926.G1474>