Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:02:16 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf Message-ID: <200010101802.MAA28379@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:48:41 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001010133649.28422C-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001010133649.28422C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001010133649.28422C-100000@fledge.watson.org> Robert Watson writes: : The point in bringing it up was that unless you go through the proper : keying procedure, you don't gain much by switching to a keyed protocol : from an un-keyed one. If we have a system in which it is impossible to : follow the correct procedure, then it's arguable that forcing people to : use the keyed protocol has no security benefit. Agreed. I'm starting to think that the current balance is a good one. Having inetd off by default (but this is a tweakable parameter from sysinstall), but having telnet be on by default on inetd.conf. I think that we might want to have a mini-debate/meeting about this at BSDcon. I know that's a bit of a sore spot for some people, but I think we'll have enough people on both sides to reach a doable compromise. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010101802.MAA28379>