From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 24 07:01:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09240 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:01:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA09235 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:00:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA75137; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 16:00:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: Barrett Richardson Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Do I really need inetd? References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 24 Dec 1998 16:00:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: Barrett Richardson's message of "Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:13:09 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Barrett Richardson writes: > I have all my necessary network services running as daemons. In the > face of recent discoveries of problems caused for inetd by nmap > and various things I've come to the conclusion that I really don't > need inetd -- another variable I can eliminated from the mix. > > Any undesirable side effects come to mind? As others have pointed out, inetd has its advantage. One advantage I have not yet seen mentioned is that you have less running processes at any time since unneeded servers are not running. Also, assuming inetd does not die, you needn't worry about somebody DoSing you by killing your servers, since inetd will restart them as needed. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message