From owner-freebsd-security Wed Sep 6 17:48:04 1995 Return-Path: security-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA01061 for security-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:48:04 -0700 Received: from gate.sinica.edu.tw (gate.sinica.edu.tw [140.109.14.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA01053 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:47:59 -0700 Received: by gate.sinica.edu.tw (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA27853; Thu, 7 Sep 1995 08:44:50 +0800 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 08:44:50 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: Bill Trost Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do we *really* need logger(1)? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: security-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Bill Trost wrote: > > Logger requires no special permissions to run; anyone can run such a > program. Better yet, anyone could run such a program anywhere on the > 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...). syslog() and syslogd are the real problems. What use is there for a syslog service on port 514? I don't see why it should even bother listening to a network port. It should only accept input from /dev/[k]log. -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org