Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:15:36 -0800 From: Lawrence Sica <larry@interactivate.com> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Rodrigo Campos <camposr@MATRIX.COM.BR>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wrapping sshd Message-ID: <38D07C08.28FB5CF7@interactivate.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003151730240.11873-100000@speed.matrix.com.br> <38D00906.389A9A28@interactivate.com> <38D07B98.53CBA3E@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: > > > sshd can do this within it's own config file already. > > True, but I've always found it more convenient to have all of my system > access limits in the same file. (Well, two files, hosts.allow and > rc.firewall, so I really don't want a third...) > > > The reasons for not > > running it in inetd are pretty much the same for not wrapping it. > > No, not running it out of inetd is a whole different issue. The theory > is that sshd is more reliable than inetd, and you always want to be able > to get into your system. I have always thought that the sshd authors > were a bit grandiose on that topic.. :) > Ahh i was led to believe it was due to the fact it needs to generate a key and all the fun stuff associated with it. Didn;t know that the big ego theory applied there heh. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38D07C08.28FB5CF7>