From owner-freebsd-security Thu Mar 25 13:52:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5561415371 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:52:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10QI2O-000BcU-00; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:51:40 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Erik Gault Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xinetd vs. tcp_wrappers In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:02:19 EST." <4.1.19990325145000.00b63100@mason.gmu.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:51:39 +0200 Message-ID: <44669.922398699@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:02:19 EST, Erik Gault wrote: > [...] I'd read a bit about inetd not being particularly secure so > I thought I'd look into what the options were for replacing it or > putting additional software into place to improve the situation. Hi Erik, Now that you've received a few interesting answers from people who aren't following current FreeBSD development, let me tell you what's happening. :-) The tcp_wrappers package is in the process of being incorporated into the base system. Our inetd is in the process of being taught how to link against and use libwrap (like NetBSD's inetd). Once that's done, FreeBSD will sport one of the coolest inetd's on the block. Follow the freebsd-current mailing list for updates on this story. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message