From owner-freebsd-security Tue Dec 28 8:25:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from cantor.boolean.net (cantor.boolean.net [209.133.111.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA43714ED9 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:25:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kurt@boolean.net) Received: from boolean.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cantor.boolean.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09008; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:25:36 GMT (envelope-from kurt@boolean.net) Message-ID: <3868E4A9.2290E82@boolean.net> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:26:17 -0800 From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Organization: Net Boolean X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en-US,en,de-DE,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bjorb vs sslproxy vs stunnel References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Robert Watson wrote: > Don't have any experience with bjorb or stunnel, but I do remember finding > that sslproxy doesn't correctly reap fork()'d zombie children, resulting > in large numbers of zombies on a production machine. This was a couple of > months ago, so it may have been fixed since then, but it wasn't very > entertaining. You might also consider SSH for tunneling if you allow > users to have accounts on your machine (i.e., SSH requires them to log in > before providing tunneling services) -- this is a common arrangement with > CVS where they will need to authenticate anyway. We don't allow logins to the system providing the CVS master repository. > I hope to give stunnel a > try shortly in the hopes that it is better than sslproxy :-). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message