Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:30:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> To: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> Cc: Bill Trost <trost@cloud.rain.com>, Brian Tao <taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do we *really* need logger(1)? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950906132823.7950D-100000@haven.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199509062022.NAA26565@corbin.Root.COM>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, David Greenman wrote: > >On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Bill Trost wrote: > > > >> Internet, so syslogd(8) can also be used as a remote disk-filling > >> service. (And, since it's UDP-based, you can't tcp-wrap it...). > > > > tcp_wrapper is primitive. xinetd is better and can support UDP. > > Um, syslogd is a daemon and is not spawned by inetd...so how would doing > anything with inetd affect this problem? True. My point was that xinetd can wrap UDP daemons and tcp_wrapper can not. Plus, xinetd can do it without exec'ing an additional program. Filters on border routers should be used to block "outside" syslogd abuse. Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950906132823.7950D-100000>