Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:12:04 +0200
From:      Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
To:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc:        Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Small, useful tools (Was: Re: 'cpdup' program, and question) 
Message-ID:  <199901261912.VAA50572@greenpeace.grondar.za>
In-Reply-To: Your message of " Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:46:36 %2B0100." <27224.917376396@critter.freebsd.dk> 
References:  <27224.917376396@critter.freebsd.dk> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> Tcp_wrappers are small enough to bmake directly. Trivial job.
> >
> >I'd second this with respect to FreeBSD getting an entry
> >in the ,hall of fames' of "Ultra secure" BSD's ;-)
> 
> It is not a matter of size, or bmakability, it is simply a matter of
> importing code which is maintained (better) elsewhere is a bad idea
> in principle (ref: IPFILTER, xntpd, sendmail &c &c &c)

If the software concerned is undergoing rapid development (such as
Fetchmail did a year or two ago as an extreme case and Sendmail is
now as a mild case), I'd agree with you vehemently. Tcp_wrappers
are extremely stable, and have had nary an update for quite a while
in spite of its popularity.

I reckon having sendmail delivered OOTB with wrappers will assist
the newbie sysadmin no end with securing against bombers and spammers,
and likewise for inetd with similar support (disclaimer *).

<datapoint>
I would have loved to include a POP server in the to-be-bmaked
list, except I have read too much recently about how unstable
or stylisticaly bad the current options are.
<MHO>
Nevertheless, it would do our "features" list a good turn to have
"POP server" on the "out of box" list.
</MHO>
</datapoint>

Point taken. I'll add xntpd to my list of projects (meaning I'll
get to it about 6 months :). TCP_wrappers I can do in an hour; I
know, 'cos I did it before (I lost that when I was burgled).

M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org

* I fully recognise that tcp wrappers are susceptible to spoofing
attacks. They are however extremely effective against the current
crop of 5KR1PT K1DZ.

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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901261912.VAA50572>