Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:53:42 -0800 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=c3=b8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH HPN Message-ID: <56437296.9000709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86r3jwfpiq.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> <56428E8A.3090201@FreeBSD.org> <56428F59.5010908@FreeBSD.org> <86y4e47uty.fsf@desk.des.no> <56436F4B.8050002@FreeBSD.org> <86r3jwfpiq.fsf@desk.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 11/11/2015 8:51 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> Another thing that I did with the port was restore the tcpwrapper >> support that upstream removed. Again, if we decide it is not worth >> keeping in base I will remove it as default in the port. > > I want to keep tcpwrapper support - it is another reason why I still > haven't upgraded OpenSSH, but to the best of my knowledge, it is far > less intrusive than HPN. > Yes, it's very small. /usr/ports/security/openssh-portable/files/extra-patch-tcpwrappers -- Regards, Bryan Drewery [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWQ3KWAAoJEDXXcbtuRpfPjuQIAOH7lQQNVQnJncQAnU4atnQj FNhVFqPF5YCb/j596/9PZsCZUF96NSZtPtp16DmDrv2U5DkUmk4ff3j3Ws/Wc5Ua htDBU9z3+9lFmu9n5fymMhUDe885uvIxAC3V0tBInHSAgOD/PETdKz2v4aWuqh0p hWlO9oTO5lKLn9JCApVn2/IZNOhY0zKWCuRpPGlVehulqyeMx0X/2crOdHPrv2eT BhiVlaCAjlI7fO0wVKuoQlfTF18usIzZrFm0PlHGvCmrkO54XOZqhp7tqZv7AYcn B3FnvwV2GqDstYllOL6dRAIsVhqyDmN2xuvbqcY+i+54QB6LMiwz3ZkzallJgIM= =XqpT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56437296.9000709>