From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 15 00:15:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA07297
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gnostic.cynic.net (gnostic.cynic.net [198.73.220.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA07289
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by gnostic.cynic.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA02841; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: gnostic.cynic.net: cjs owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca>
X-Sender: cjs@gnostic.cynic.net
To: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com>
cc: spork <spork@super-g.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Major bogon in tcp_wrappers port.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970912222423.3592B-100000@echonyc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.970915001343.28817T-100000@gnostic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Snob Art Genre wrote:

> Any reason for tcp_wrappers instead of xinetd?  Or vice-versa for that
> matter?

MHO, of course, but:

- tcwrappers is smaller, and thus easier to verify the security of
- tcpwrappers comes with libwrap, so that programs not spawned from
  inetd can use the same config file
- it's fairly trivial to modify inetd to use libwrap

cjs

Curt Sampson    cjs@portal.ca		Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.		`And malt does more than Milton can
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		 To justify God's ways to man.'