Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:15:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca> To: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com> Cc: spork <spork@super-g.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Major bogon in tcp_wrappers port. Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.970915001343.28817T-100000@gnostic.cynic.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970912222423.3592B-100000@echonyc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Snob Art Genre wrote: > Any reason for tcp_wrappers instead of xinetd? Or vice-versa for that > matter? MHO, of course, but: - tcwrappers is smaller, and thus easier to verify the security of - tcpwrappers comes with libwrap, so that programs not spawned from inetd can use the same config file - it's fairly trivial to modify inetd to use libwrap cjs Curt Sampson cjs@portal.ca Info at http://www.portal.ca/ Internet Portal Services, Inc. `And malt does more than Milton can Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 To justify God's ways to man.'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.93.970915001343.28817T-100000>