Re: Smooth replacement of inetd with xinetd
On Oct 26, Christian Leutloff wrote
> I want to replace inetd with xinetd because it seems to be better
> configurable and more secure.
Its a different configuration syntax and therefore breaking a lot of
packages, and is bigger, but not necesseryly more secure. A inetd with
built-in tcpwrapper (I think the Open BSD folks have it) would be the better
Solution IMHO. I have some patches for the inetd like binding on specific
addresses and stuff, but Idont see anything "insecure" with inetd. (Well,
Okay, there is a Problem with limiting the number of allowed istances for
each service, dont know if xinetd supports that). tcpserver does...
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +4972573817 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: