From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Jun 9 6:20: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1785014C13 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:20:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id GAA66986; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:20:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906091320.GAA66986@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: bin/11960: inetd built in wrapping doesn't log like tcpd does. Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/11960; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: David Malone Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/11960: inetd built in wrapping doesn't log like tcpd does. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:17:30 +0200 On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:54:44 +0100, David Malone wrote: > I've an interesting tail of caution for people - if you already have > services wrapped with tcpd and wonder why: > > in.rshd rshd: ALL : severity dshosadh.warning : deny > > Is alowd by inetd's tcp wrapping dshosadh.warning? :-) I assume you meant that this breaks if inetd.conf specifies that a program should be launched through tcpd. That's true, but I don't think we want to mung inetd so that it knows about tcpd at all. I think the first patch you sent, for honouring hosts_access severity extensions should be committed, but I don't think your second patch is desireable. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message