From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Jul 1 04:36:50 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA17409 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 04:36:50 -0700 Received: from grunt.grondar.za (grunt.grondar.za [196.7.18.129]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA17398 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 04:36:42 -0700 Received: from grumble.grondar.za (grumble.grondar.za [196.7.18.130]) by grunt.grondar.za (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA10836; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 13:36:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grumble.grondar.za (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA23465; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 13:36:31 +0200 Message-Id: <199507011136.NAA23465@grumble.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grumble.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: utils/ explosion Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 13:36:31 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > BTW, what do people think about "pidentd" and "tcp_wrapper"? Torsten > said they are security tools but aren't as "secure" as they should be, > so it might be dangerous to put them in the "security" category and > people might think they are safe to use. Tcp_wrapper is an incredibly useful tool. It may not be the ultimate answer, but at my company (we are an internet service provider), tcp wrappers have kept a good couple of hack-attacks away. The package may have a problem or two, but properly driven, they are an important part of any secure setup. They are not a total answer in themselves; we also run COPS, and there is no substitute for a wide-awake administrator or two. :-) > *I* think if it's a security tool, it should go to "security", but > then I don't know the severity of their problems. Experts? :) I also think they should go into security. M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200