From owner-freebsd-security  Sat Aug 15 21:40:07 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA29743
          for freebsd-security-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 21:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.224.24])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29668
          for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 21:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au)
Message-Id: <199808160440.VAA29668@hub.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA178382322; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:38:42 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: inetd enhancements (fwd)
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:38:41 +1000 (EST)
Cc: benedikt@devnull.ruhr.de, marcs@znep.com, ben@rosengart.com,
        security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <2983.901735734@verdi.nethelp.no> from "sthaug@nethelp.no" at Jul 29, 98 08:08:54 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


allowing different programs to bind to different IP addresses
(on a multi-ip# box) is something inetd does not do and can't
handle with packet filters and requires tcpd/fwtk type solution.

however, I think that rather hacking that functionality into
inetd, look at xinetd (which already has numerous additions)
and leave inetd to be more standard...


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message