Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:21:51 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Igor Roshchin <str@giganda.komkon.org> Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcp_wrappers Message-ID: <20011016132151.B21030@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200110161738.f9GHcBm12030@giganda.komkon.org>; from str@giganda.komkon.org on Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:38:11PM -0400 References: <200110161738.f9GHcBm12030@giganda.komkon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:38:11PM -0400, Igor Roshchin wrote: > > 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). There's absolutely no reason for you to install the port - everything it contains is functionally available in the base system (with tcpd replaced by inetd). Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7zJbfWry0BWjoQKURAmV1AKCgdSiacgQkoWOfPE9uK/rsuvlMcwCfQw+N T4Ww1hOnUM1Qaz1HFqk7nUM= =zfC4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011016132151.B21030>