From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jan 23 03:20:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA01448 for security-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 03:20:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from grumble.grondar.za (root@grumble.grondar.za [196.7.18.130]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA01409 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 03:20:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mark@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grumble.grondar.za (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01191; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:19:26 +0200 (SAT) Message-Id: <199601231119.NAA01191@grumble.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grumble.grondar.za: Host mark@localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Paul Traina cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:19:26 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Paul Traina wrote: > They're gone...sorry, I shit-canned eBones/kerberos here in favor of ssh. > You'll have to gen a copy of the patches by hand by using a copy of the pl9 > and pl10 distributions, since ted never posted patches (you might ask him > if he has done so since, tytso@mit.edu). Will do. Ta. > Let's separate the issue here, perhaps we can come to some sort of > compromise. I would have little if any objection to putting optional > calls to libwrap into our existing code in the same fashion we do stuff > with with other optional parts of the system. In other words, if you > wanted to add access control checking to YP or NFSD, and you put in > conditional code that is only invoked if /usr/local/lib/libwrap.a is > present, I won't barf all over my feet. You mean put something like .if (wrappers_lib_exists_in_local) SUPPORT_WRAPPERS = yes .endif in the appropriate Makefiles? > Reasonable compromise? Yup. (And they said the art of negotiation was dead!) M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200 Finger mark@grondar.za for PGP key