From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Oct 10 11: 2:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C3137B66D; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9AI2Hi14548; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:02:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id MAA28379; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:02:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200010101802.MAA28379@harmony.village.org> To: Robert Watson Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:48:41 EDT." References: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:02:16 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message 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