Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:20:02 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: playnet <playnet@mail333.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: inetd and security Message-ID: <8E1DD9F2-9449-45BF-9C9B-7430EAE41798@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <1966051257.20060125040907@mail333.com> References: <1966051257.20060125040907@mail333.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--Apple-Mail-11-1057013117
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On 25 Jan 2006, at 01:09, Playnet wrote:
> Hello freebsd-questions,
>
> What better for security reasons?
> Inetd, xinetd, standalone? As sample -- vsftpd.
> As i know, inetd insecure and deprecated. But what better, xinetd or
> standalone?
There's nothing inherently insecure about inetd, and I think that
our implementation is just fine.
As for {x,}inetd vs standalone, that depends entirely on your kind
of load.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
--Apple-Mail-11-1057013117
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFD2L5zme8yCsQvJJ0RAvhiAJsGzFASvDjJ35terIU8owilwvOn0gCgqWVz
OVsZVXjM0Fhj6KpIYyrwGNA=
=CPh0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail-11-1057013117--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8E1DD9F2-9449-45BF-9C9B-7430EAE41798>