From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 25 13:13:28 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EDB16A416
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:13:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com)
Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk
	[195.188.213.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A52743D7D
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:13:07 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com)
Received: from [172.23.170.145] (helo=anti-virus03-08)
	by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1GciZ8-0007oO-Ls; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:13:06 +0100
Received: from [62.31.10.95] (helo=[192.168.0.2])
	by asmtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1GciZ7-0006mp-LA; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:13:05 +0100
Message-ID: <453F62E1.5090506@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:13:05 +0100
From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060515
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?0KDQuNGF0LDQtCDQk9Cw0LTQttC40LXQsg==?= <rihad@mail.ru>
References: <E1GcdoI-000MsQ-00.rihad-mail-ru@f48.mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <E1GcdoI-000MsQ-00.rihad-mail-ru@f48.mail.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: tcpwrappers & SSH
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:13:28 -0000

=C3=B2=C3=89=C3=88=C3=81=C3=84 =C3=A7=C3=81=C3=84=C3=96=C3=89=C3=85=C3=97=
 wrote:

>A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
>Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
>
>Why? Is it because such restrictions should naturally be made using a fi=
rewall/PAM/sshd itself/whatever? I think GENERIC sshd wouldn't have been =
built with libwrap support in the first place. Or?
> =20
>
I can't answer the question as such, but on a low-ssh-usage box I do use =

/etc/hosts.allow for sshd and it works just fine(**).  The original=20
author unfortunately left out the half of the statement that explained=20
their reasoning.  Perhaps it's just to do with trying to maintain=20
large(*) lists of hosts, which IIRC, hosts.allow is not overly efficient =

for.

--Alex

(*) large probably means hundreds.  IIRC the relevant library will just=20
scan down the list of hosts/addresses and compare each, rather than=20
trying anything clever with a db file or whatever.

(**) And I block access in the firewall.  Security in depth - if I=20
bugger up one level, the other level still holds.