From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 18 17:28:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C5516A4B3 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2131A43FCB for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:28:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531BB65404; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29713-03; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from saboteur.dek.spc.org (unknown [81.3.72.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B7065339; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:36 +0100 (BST) Received: by saboteur.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0269F9; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:33 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Scott Gerhardt Message-ID: <20030919002833.GE2720@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Gerhardt , Roger Marquis , freebsd-security@freebsd.org References: <20030918192135.744AADACAF@mx7.roble.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org cc: Roger Marquis Subject: Questionable merits of inetd replacements X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:28:39 -0000 [subject change] On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 01:27:49PM -0600, Scott Gerhardt wrote: > Better Yet, what about using xinetd which is much more configurable and > robust. I am surprised that FreeBSD's default installation still uses inetd > instead of xinetd. FreeBSD's inetd offers features which are not present in xinetd, support for IPSEC policy settings being one of them. I fail to see how using xinetd would be an improvement -- pardon my ignorance if there are features in xinetd which you feel would somehow benefit the user base enough to justify a change. If inetd is not suitable for your needs, consider installing the xinetd port, or integrating it into your own OS engineering build. BMS