From owner-freebsd-security Tue Aug 15 8:48:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from pukeko.bc.edu (pukeko.bc.edu [136.167.2.218]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F1837B815 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kelleyry@bc.edu) Received: from netfin6.bc.edu (netfin6.bc.edu [136.167.2.128]) by pukeko.bc.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA184678; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:48:25 -0400 X-WebMail-UserID: kelleyry@mail2.bc.edu Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:48:25 -0400 From: Ryan Kelley To: Alex Popa , freebsd-security X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002702 Subject: RE: xinetd versus inetd Message-ID: <39B6595C@netfin6.bc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I could be wrong (it's happened before) but as far as i know the main difference is that inetd is subject to DoS attacks, as it will suck up as much memory as it wants filling requests. xinetd prevents against this. on a semi-related note, where's tcpserver in this equation, and is anyone running non-qmail services in tcpserver? -ryan >===== Original Message From Alex Popa ===== >Could someone point out what the differences between the two are, and >why I should use one or the other? > >Thanks in advance, > Alex > >------------+------------------------------------------ >Alex Popa, |There never was a good war or a bad peace >razor@ldc.ro| -- B. Franklin >------------+------------------------------------------ >"It took the computing power of three C-64s to fly to the Moon. >It takes a 486 to run Windows 95. Something is wrong here." > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message -- Ryan Kelley kelleyry@bc.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message