Daniel Bye wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote:
I run sshd and ftpd on my laptop. I generally start them via:
in my rc.conf.
What are the pros/cons of running them via inetd?
This is in no way a high load or production machine. Just my laptop
that I need access to from time to time.
The one pro I have noticed (which is rather important to me) is that
ftpd does not heed hosts.allow directives when NOT run via inetd. Am I
correct in this? I prefer to use tcpwrappers to further protect my sshd
and ftpd. I generally keep ftpd firewalled off from the world and when
someone needs to (anonymous) ftp something to me I open the firewall.
But it would be nice to allow only their IP using hosts.allow (as I just
enable/disable a generic ruleset in ipfw). So should I forget to
disable the ruleset in ipfw then I am not open all day till I reboot.
Thanks for the response.
When sshd starts, it needs to generate keys and set up its cryptographic
environment, so you will notice a bit of lag before getting a login
prompt. This may or may not mean anything to you, depending on how
beefy your laptop is.
Check man sshd for the -i option.
sshd should, by default, be compiled with tcpwrappers support anyway.
You can test whether this is the case by putting something like this at
the top of your hosts.allow:
sshd : 127.0.0.1 : deny
and then try connecting on the loopback interface. If you see `refused
connect from localhost' in your /var/log/auth.log, then your sshd uses
hosts.allow and running it from inetd won't give you any benefit.
Actually I have sshd under control. It works fine, and yes uses
tcpwrappers by default.
I don't know about ftpd, as I don't use it.
ftpd however does not seem to use them.
Although I am curious about ftpd and tcpwrappers.... I am also
interested in whether or not running these daemons under inetd is
preferred or not. If so why? If not, why?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"