You are perfectly right Mark, when commenting out all services that is.
still I prefer to keep it running with a minimum of services enabled.
/Karl
Mark Drummond skrev:
> It only has it's uses if you are running any services through it. If you
> are going to # out all the services in /etc/in
It only has it's uses if you are running any services through it. If you
are going to # out all the services in /etc/inetd.conf, why not just
shut inetd down alltogether? Seems logical to me.
Mark
Karl Breitner wrote:
Hmm, I don't understand this discussion about disabling inetd
it has it's
Hmm, I don't understand this discussion about disabling inetd
it has it's uses. Just fire up your favourite text editor pointed at
/etc/inetd.conf
and insert a hashmark # in front of every line for a service you don't
want to provide to the public.
Best Rgards
/Karl
"Noah L. Meyerhans" wro
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Juhan Kundla wrote:
>
> Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
>
As root:
/etc/init.d/inetd stop
rm /etc/rc?.d/S??inetd
It will not be started again, but the K??inetd links will still be in
place so the next upgrade won't
Generally, I just disable the inetd script from the /etc/init.d
directory.
You never know if you're going to need it. Removing the package
is definitely not the same as disabling it.
Michal is right: disable <> wipe it out :)
-Anne
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:31:19PM +0200, Michal Melewski wrote
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:28:41AM -0600, Jay Kline wrote:
> On Friday 05 April 2002 08:49 am, Juhan Kundla wrote:
>
> > How do you do that? I tried the following...
>
> Not remove- but not start. Remove all references to it from the /etc/rc*.d/
> directorys so that it dosnt start up anymore.
You are perfectly right Mark, when commenting out all services that is.
still I prefer to keep it running with a minimum of services enabled.
/Karl
Mark Drummond skrev:
> It only has it's uses if you are running any services through it. If you
> are going to # out all the services in /etc/i
It only has it's uses if you are running any services through it. If you
are going to # out all the services in /etc/inetd.conf, why not just
shut inetd down alltogether? Seems logical to me.
Mark
Karl Breitner wrote:
> Hmm, I don't understand this discussion about disabling inetd
> it has it
Hmm, I don't understand this discussion about disabling inetd
it has it's uses. Just fire up your favourite text editor pointed at
/etc/inetd.conf
and insert a hashmark # in front of every line for a service you don't
want to provide to the public.
Best Rgards
/Karl
"Noah L. Meyerhans" wr
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:49:46PM +0200, Juhan Kundla wrote:
>
> Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
>
As root:
/etc/init.d/inetd stop
rm /etc/rc?.d/S??inetd
It will not be started again, but the K??inetd links will still be in
place so the next upgrade won'
Generally, I just disable the inetd script from the /etc/init.d
directory.
You never know if you're going to need it. Removing the package
is definitely not the same as disabling it.
Michal is right: disable <> wipe it out :)
-Anne
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:31:19PM +0200, Michal Melewski wrot
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:31:19PM +0200, Michal Melewski remarked:
> > Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
> I think that you should just turn it off :)
> 'Don't' use isn't equal to 'wipe it out'
I have found the 'rcconf' utility to be very helpful in thes
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:28:41AM -0600, Jay Kline wrote:
> On Friday 05 April 2002 08:49 am, Juhan Kundla wrote:
>
> > How do you do that? I tried the following...
>
> Not remove- but not start. Remove all references to it from the /etc/rc*.d/
> directorys so that it dosnt start up anymore.
> Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
I think that you should just turn it off :)
'Don't' use isn't equal to 'wipe it out'
> Namarie!
> Juku
--
Michael "carstein" Melewski | "One day, he said, in a taped segment
[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
On Friday 05 April 2002 08:49 am, Juhan Kundla wrote:
> How do you do that? I tried the following...
Not remove- but not start. Remove all references to it from the /etc/rc*.d/
directorys so that it dosnt start up anymore. If you are not useing any of
its services, its pointless to have it r
Ühel ilusal päeval [02.04.2002] kirjutas Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[skip]
> I usually turn off inetd completely. It helps makes things
> quieter on a nessus scan :)
Hei!
How do you do that? I tried the following...
juku:~# dpkg -l | grep inetd
ii netkit-inetd 0.10-9 The Inte
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:31:19PM +0200, Michal Melewski remarked:
> > Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
> I think that you should just turn it off :)
> 'Don't' use isn't equal to 'wipe it out'
I have found the 'rcconf' utility to be very helpful in the
> Yikes! I guess, you didn't remove inetd that way, right? But how then?
I think that you should just turn it off :)
'Don't' use isn't equal to 'wipe it out'
> Namarie!
> Juku
--
Michael "carstein" Melewski | "One day, he said, in a taped segment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Friday 05 April 2002 08:49 am, Juhan Kundla wrote:
> How do you do that? I tried the following...
Not remove- but not start. Remove all references to it from the /etc/rc*.d/
directorys so that it dosnt start up anymore. If you are not useing any of
its services, its pointless to have it
Ühel ilusal päeval [02.04.2002] kirjutas Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[skip]
> I usually turn off inetd completely. It helps makes things
> quieter on a nessus scan :)
Hei!
How do you do that? I tried the following...
juku:~# dpkg -l | grep inetd
ii netkit-inetd 0.10-9 The Int
Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The question of what to do with these ports comes up every once in a
>> while on this list. Some people prefer to leave them on, others turn
>> them off. I don't think there's ever been an exploit that involves these
>> ports, as the code is quite simple
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:56:30PM +0200, eim wrote:
> First of all thanks to all for responses.
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> >
> > > > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:34:32PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> > and I'm not sure what discard is used for.
> No, NTP does not use the time port. It uses port 123 (ntp in
> /etc/services).
Ok, figures I don't know since I don't u
rdate is probably easier to use. ntp requires at least a little
configuration, but it is more accurate.
xn
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:56:30PM +0200, eim wrote:
> First of all thanks to all for responses.
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:
First of all thanks to all for responses.
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
>
> > > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol. It just
> > > sends the time as a 32-bit int, where:
> > >
> >
Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The question of what to do with these ports comes up every once in a
>> while on this list. Some people prefer to leave them on, others turn
>> them off. I don't think there's ever been an exploit that involves these
>> ports, as the code is quite simpl
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:56:30PM +0200, eim wrote:
> First of all thanks to all for responses.
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> >
> > > > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:34:32PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> > and I'm not sure what discard is used for.
> No, NTP does not use the time port. It uses port 123 (ntp in
> /etc/services).
Ok, figures I don't know since I don't
rdate is probably easier to use. ntp requires at least a little
configuration, but it is more accurate.
xn
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:56:30PM +0200, eim wrote:
> First of all thanks to all for responses.
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09
First of all thanks to all for responses.
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:22, Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
>
> > > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol. It just
> > > sends the time as a 32-bit int, where:
> > >
> >
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol. It just
> > sends the time as a 32-bit int, where:
> >
> > "The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January 1900
> > GMT, such that the time 1 is 12
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> > 'time' is RFC 868, a pre-NTP time synchronization protocol. It just
> > sends the time as a 32-bit int, where:
> >
> > "The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January 1900
> > GMT, such that the time 1 is 1
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:49:53AM -0700, Will Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > > A question about some network services
> > > =
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:49:53AM -0700, Will Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > > A question about some network services
> > > =
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> All this services are stareted from inet.d / xinet.d so I can easily
> disable them via "update-inetd", so my only question is:
And *that's* the problem; update-inetd. I've run into this myself,
too, and the solution is to not use update-inet
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
> >
> > Hallo Debian folks,
> >
> > By default, on
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
> >
> > Hallo Debian folks,
> >
> > By default, on my debian boxes, I
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
>
> Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> and I'm not sure what discard is used for.
No, NTP does not use the time port. It uses port 123 (ntp in
/etc/services).
Discard is the network equivalent of /dev/null
T
[snips:]
Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
...
>
> Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> and I'm not sure what di
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> A question about some network services
> ==
>
> Hallo Debian folks,
>
> By default, on my debian boxes, I disable this network
> services which are enabled automaticly during a fres
A question about some network services
==
Hallo Debian folks,
By default, on my debian boxes, I disable this network
services which are enabled automaticly during a fresh
Debian stable aka "potato" installtion:
* daytime
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> All this services are stareted from inet.d / xinet.d so I can easily
> disable them via "update-inetd", so my only question is:
And *that's* the problem; update-inetd. I've run into this myself,
too, and the solution is to not use update-ine
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
> >
> > Hallo Debian folks,
> >
> > By default, on
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
> >
> > Hallo Debian folks,
> >
> > By default, on my debian boxes, I
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Anne Carasik wrote:
>
> Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> and I'm not sure what discard is used for.
No, NTP does not use the time port. It uses port 123 (ntp in
/etc/services).
Discard is the network equivalent of /dev/null
[snips:]
Anne Carasik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> > A question about some network services
> > ==
...
>
> Well, daytime spits out the time of day, time is for NTP,
> and I'm not sure what di
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:45:21PM +0200, eim wrote:
> A question about some network services
> ==
>
> Hallo Debian folks,
>
> By default, on my debian boxes, I disable this network
> services which are enabled automaticly during a fres
A question about some network services
==
Hallo Debian folks,
By default, on my debian boxes, I disable this network
services which are enabled automaticly during a fresh
Debian stable aka "potato" installtion:
* daytime
48 matches
Mail list logo
