From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 12 19:25:21 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27216
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27209
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost)
	by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA05439;
	Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:25:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com>
To: spork <spork@super-g.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Major bogon in tcp_wrappers port.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970912211638.12209B-100000@super-g.inch.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970912222423.3592B-100000@echonyc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Any reason for tcp_wrappers instead of xinetd?  Or vice-versa for that
matter?

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, spork wrote:

> I'd just like to avoid the hassle of installing it on every machine...
> 
> I do think this could be made simple for the "dumb user" with a simple
> question like "What hosts do you wish to allow to telnet to your machine?"
> in sysinstall.
> 
> If incorporating it into the base is not acceptable, then I'll ask for a
> knob in sysinstall here.  Installation time isn't the worst time to allow
> a newbie to learn a bit about security...
> 
> Charles



 Ben

"You have your mind on computers, it seems."