From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 22 23:29:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.qcislands.net (mail.qcislands.net [209.53.238.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0247214FAE for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:29:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ccstore@qcislands.net) Received: from [209.205.50.22] (helo=osa.qcislands.net) by mail.qcislands.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 117Yo7-0002SO-00 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:27:47 -0700 Received: from ccstore by osa.qcislands.net with local (Exim 3.01 #3) id 117Yy1-0004Rr-00 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:38:01 +0000 From: Jim Pazarena To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: tcp_wrappers with blacklist extension X-Mailer: SCO Shell Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9907222326.aa22223@dick.ccstores.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I have tried to compile tcp_wrappers with the blacklist patch. Altho the patch applies correctly (I've VIEWED the patched lines in both tcpdchk.c _and_ hosts_access.c), and altho the compile completes cleanly, the tcpd daemon still acts as if the blacklust patch hadn't been included. While the tcpdchk binary correctly utilizes the blacklist "file", the tcpd daemon incorrectly suggests that it is encountering a "bad net/mask" (which is what a NON-blacklist daemon _will_ indicate). Yes, I've re-HUPd _and_ rebooted. My guess is that FreeBSD 3.2 & gcc have some quirk which the compile and blacklist patch don't agree with. Any ideas? Anyone else using wrappers *with* the blacklist patch? -- Jim Pazarena mailto:paz@ccstores.com http://www.qcislands.net/paz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message