From owner-freebsd-security Wed Dec 6 6: 4:11 2000 From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 6 06:04:10 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.nettoll.com (unknown [212.155.143.61]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1E37B401 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.nettoll.com; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:01:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <4.3.0.20001206150604.05998d30@pop.free.fr> X-Sender: usebsd@pop.free.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 15:07:10 +0100 To: Matt Heckaman , "David G. Andersen" From: mouss Subject: Re: [spam score 10.00/10.0 -pobox] Re: Fw: NAPTHA Advisory Updated - BindView RAZOR Cc: FreeBSD-SECURITY In-Reply-To: References: <200012050138.SAA03007@faith.cs.utah.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 21:39 04/12/00 -0500, Matt Heckaman wrote: >It would be nice if one could set login.conf(5) style resource limits per >daemon instead of per login. Thus we could say, well "{q,send}mail can >have 1024 fds" while apache can have 4096.. etc. Maybe there is a way to >do this (djb's tcpserver? xinetd?) but I'm not currently aware of one. isn't enough to create an account for each server or group of servers, and use login.conf for the users? >One thing though, it would be nice to see FreeBSD's default fd & >nmbcluster setting be raised, as it really isn't going to be enough for a >lot of people in normal use, and damn sure won't stand up to any kind of >attack like this. Just an opinion though :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message