From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Jan 23 02:06:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA22583
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 02:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from silver.sms.fi (silver.sms.fi [194.111.122.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA22564
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 02:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from pete@localhost) by silver.sms.fi (8.6.12/8.6.9) id MAA17990; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:04:45 +0200
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:04:45 +0200
Message-Id: <199601231004.MAA17990@silver.sms.fi>
From: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi>
To: Paul Traina <pst@Shockwave.COM>
Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>,
        Nathan Lawson <nlawson@statler.csc.calpoly.edu>, security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port 
In-Reply-To: <199601230843.AAA02318@precipice.shockwave.com>
References: <199601230627.IAA25371@grumble.grondar.za>
	<199601230843.AAA02318@precipice.shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Paul Traina writes:
 > 
 > I totally and completely disagree.  I do not want to be bound by your
 > idea of what's proper for the core part of the system.  That's why we
 > have a generic source distribution and you can personalize your system
 > to your hearts content.
 > 
 > Read:  I will wish seriously bad karma on anyone who unilaterally bloats
 >        out the system with the wrapper code.  There is NO good reason to
 >        make it anything other than a port -- which makes it OPTIONAL to
 >        install and easy to track 3rd party changes.

I couldn't agree more. Many places do have adequate firewalling procedures
already in place and wrappers would do only more administrative overhead
with no additional security.

Pete