Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:25:55 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Alla Bezroutchko <alla@sovlink.ru> Cc: FreeBSD Security <security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Syslog alternatives? Message-ID: <199907091625.KAA20308@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:49:24 %2B0400." <37859B74.7528C158@sovlink.ru> References: <37859B74.7528C158@sovlink.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <37859B74.7528C158@sovlink.ru> Alla Bezroutchko writes: : Could someone explain me or point me to some resources that explain : why syslogd is bad? By default, syslogd will accept messages from anybody. DoS implications in doing that are ignored, so it remains vulnerable to a fill up the disk attack. Secure switches make it less vulnerable. I don't think that there is anything major enough wrong with syslogd to actually try to replace it. If there are bad things that can happen when -s is specified, I'd sure like to know about them. Warner FreeBSD Security Officer. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907091625.KAA20308>