From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Sep 12 15:49:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from workhorse.iMach.com (workhorse.iMach.com [206.127.77.89]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C4237B423 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (forrestc@localhost) by workhorse.iMach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26784; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:51:59 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:51:58 -0600 (MDT) From: "Forrest W. Christian" To: Steve Kaczkowski Cc: InvictaNet Customer Support , Freebsd-ISP Subject: Re: Telnet restrictions In-Reply-To: <39BEB156.AC49A795@inc.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Steve Kaczkowski wrote: > I'd check into both to see which would work better in your situation, > tcp_wrappers will do it for you, but you can get much more creative > with Ipfilter since it's a full firewalling package.. The other non-quantifyable advantage is that ipfilter/ipfw (whichever) rejects the connection at a much lower level - logically, this would indicate that ipfilter/ipfw *might* be more secure.... - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) AC7DE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message