From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jan 22 22:13:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA03409 for security-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA03391 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30754-3>; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:15:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:15:28 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Nathan Lawson cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port In-Reply-To: <199601222147.NAA09887@statler.csc.calpoly.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Nathan Lawson wrote: > Secondly, I was wondering why the tcp_wrappers distribution didn't make it > into the source tree instead of being a port. It's a pretty small program > that hasn't received too many changes recently. It's very worthwhile and > libwrap.a can be linked into portmap and ypserv a lot more easily (even > making this the default, perhaps). Personally, I've always considered xinetd to the be the superior solution to the access control problem, since it doesn't incur the extra overhead of a fork+exec for every connection. Tom