From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Sep  6 13:42:39 1995
Return-Path: security-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id NAA22705
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:42:39 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA22698
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:42:37 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30843>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:44:29 +0100
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)? 
In-Reply-To: <199509062022.NAA26565@corbin.Root.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950906132823.7950D-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: security-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


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