From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 22 00:57:19 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA15439 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 1995 00:57:19 -0700 Received: from inf.ethz.ch (root@neptune.ethz.ch [129.132.101.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA15433 for ; Mon, 22 May 1995 00:57:15 -0700 Received: from tau.inf.ethz.ch (arquint@tau.inf.ethz.ch [129.132.101.47]) by inf.ethz.ch (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA20145; Mon, 22 May 1995 09:57:11 +0200 Received: from localhost (arquint@localhost) by tau.inf.ethz.ch (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA23984; Mon, 22 May 1995 09:57:09 +0200 Message-Id: <199505220757.JAA23984@tau.inf.ethz.ch> To: questions@FreeBSD.org cc: arquint@tau.inf.ethz.ch Subject: Access Controll (e.g. tcp wrapper) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 09:57:07 +0200 From: Caspar Arquint Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi folks, Nice thing this tcp_wrapper. I'm using it for a while, now as many others of you. What about putting similar code into the accept(3) call. That would enable to administer an access contoll list for any incoming tcp connection. Might be applied to recvfrom(3) for udp connections as well. With that approach it would be possible that all the servers, which are not started by inetd will have this ACL feature as well. I don't think that I'm the first with this idea. So what speaks against such an approach? --- Caspar Arquint