From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Apr 28 19:32:15 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA13926
          for security-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA13913
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604290232.TAA13913@freefall.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA212404949; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:29:09 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Q on using "netpipes" for firewall maintanance tasks
To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:29:09 +1000 (EST)
Cc: stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua, firewalls@GreatCircle.COM, security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199604281655.JAA00331@precipice.shockwave.com> from "Paul Traina" at Apr 28, 96 09:55:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Paul Traina, sie said:
> 
> 
>   From: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua>
>   Subject: Q on using "netpipes" for firewall maintanance tasks
>   Hello people,
>   
>   I'm now in a search for safer but convenient rsh(1) replacement for some
>   tasks of firewall day-to-day operation, i.e. gathering some stats, etc.
>   to an inside machine.  Firewall is composed of FreeBeasts (I like
>   that spelling of FreeBSD! :)  no fancy black Cisco boxen for filtering
>   routers.
> 
> ...
> 
>   So, I'm seriously considering netpipes as a transport -- only a server
>   part is on the firewall machine(s), bound to a preselected set
>   of ports, with /bin/sh script attached to it.
>   
>   Where am I wrong?
> 
> Not buying the cisco box.

Is this just a blatant marketting plug or is there a reason behind this ?