From owner-freebsd-security Tue Aug 15 10:37: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from pcbtech.ru (servak.pcbtech.ru [195.54.223.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2565A37B610 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:37:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from admin@pcbtech.ru) Received: (qmail 4313 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2000 17:37:18 -0000 Received: from 164.inforser.ru (HELO iNDiAN) (195.54.223.164) by servak.pcbtech.ru with SMTP; 15 Aug 2000 17:37:18 -0000 Message-ID: <001a01c006df$44803360$a4df36c3@Inforser.Ru> From: "Oleg Strizhak" To: "Ryan Kelley" Cc: References: <39B6595C@netfin6.bc.edu> Subject: Re: xinetd versus inetd Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:35:28 +0400 Organization: PCB Technologies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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 have a small set of services (ftp+qmail) but tcpserver handles'em nice. All other (httpd, ssh, ...) are standalone. Have no probs ... yet Oleg Strizhak To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message