From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 16 10:38:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from giganda.komkon.org (giganda.komkon.org [209.125.17.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C466537B409 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from str@localhost) by giganda.komkon.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f9GHcBm12030 for security@freebsd.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:38:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from str) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:38:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Roshchin Message-Id: <200110161738.f9GHcBm12030@giganda.komkon.org> To: security@freebsd.org Subject: tcp_wrappers Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello! on a 4.x system: tcpd_chk(8) barks: warning: /etc/hosts.allow, line 71: popper: service possibly not wrapped From some side symptoms I suspect it might be the case. Does it make sense to run tcp_wrappers from the ports collection on the popper daemon ? I noticed that tcp_wrappers port in its Makefile has : .if exists(/usr/include/tcpd.h) FORBIDDEN= tcp_wrappers is in the base system .endif I wonder if there is any conflict if I used both base-system tcp_wrappers, and the one from ports (the latter for wrapping a particular daemon). Thanks, Igor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message