From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 1 10:33:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from gamma.qmw.ac.uk (gamma.qmw.ac.uk [138.37.6.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99E4514C14 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from D.M.Pick@qmw.ac.uk) Received: from xi.css.qmw.ac.uk by gamma.qmw.ac.uk with SMTP-QMW with ESMTP; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:32:46 +0100 Received: from cgaa180 by xi.css.qmw.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.92 #1) for freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG id 10zkhZ-0006Qf-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:32:45 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcp wrappers In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 1999 17:37:04 +0200." <52368.930843424@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 18:32:45 +0100 From: David Pick Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > But I can't see tcpd anywhere, only tcpdcheck and so on. Why is this ? > > If you look at the inetd manpage, you'll see that it supports builtin > wrapping. You don't need tcpd. To be explicit - inetd is linked with the libwrap library so it's unnecessary to activate a separate program with the extra overheads that involves. > > What if I want to set up different access rules based on the protocol in = > > use, not the program ? > > That's a limitation of hosts.allow. Short of creating a copy of the > daemon binary with a new name, you can't do what you want to with inetd > and TCP Wrappers. Actually, a separate copy is not necessary; a hard (or soft) link is sufficient to make the wrappers see a new name so different rules can be used. -- David Pick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message