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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950906132823.7950D-100000>