On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 02:35:40AM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > If seems to me that what is wanted here is a "superfinger" daemon, a sort > of mini-inetd. It would accept the connection from inetd, make a decision > based upon some set of system or per-user configuration files as to which > finger daemon should be spawned, and then hand the connection to the > appropriate finger daemon. bleah, why not just use alternatives? i suppose incompatible command lines switchs would bork that... > This seems like a bit of work, honestly. Finger daemons are easy to > write, so they have often provided egregious security vulnerabilities. > Given that history, I am not sure this is such a good idea, anyway. how absurd! the excuse for stupid security flaws in huge complicated software is `oh theres so much code to audit and do right!!' and now the excuse for tiny trivially simple programs is that they are small and easy to screw up?? come now, some silly little finger daemon should be fully auditable in a weekend or less, just audit it every weekend for 2 months and you should have the most secure finger ever! [note to humor impaired: im not flaming just mocking the absurdity of unsecure fingers] -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpyKEYHn9spQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature