--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 14:35:29 -0500 Eric Schuele
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm confused. I was agreeing with you. I was simply adding another
reason as to why the author of the "Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a
good idea" comment might have made the comment.
Are you saying that
On 10/25/2006 14:13, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 13:58:27 -0500 Eric Schuele
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Viewed from a slightly different angle...
If you are responsible for maintaining machine xyz, and you have used
tcpwrappers... chances are you'll eventually need acc
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Eric Schuele wrote:
On 10/25/06 09:56, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:08:26 +0400 ? ???
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
Why? Is it because such restrict
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 13:58:27 -0500 Eric Schuele
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Viewed from a slightly different angle...
If you are responsible for maintaining machine xyz, and you have used
tcpwrappers... chances are you'll eventually need access to that machine
from a location you di
On 10/25/06 09:56, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:08:26 +0400 ? ???
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
Why? Is it because such restrictions should naturally be made using a
firewal
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:08:26 +0400 Рихад Гаджиев
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
Why? Is it because such restrictions should naturally be made using a
firewall/PAM/sshd itself/whatever? I think GENE
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
òÉÈÁÄ çÁÄÖÉÅ× wrote:
A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
With tcpwrappers, you still have to open a socket and burn
cycles/ram/resources on the 3-way, followed by a quick RST.
With pf(4), you can
òÉÈÁÄ çÁÄÖÉÅ× wrote:
A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
Why? Is it because such restrictions should naturally be made using a
firewall/PAM/sshd itself/whatever? I think GENERIC sshd wouldn't have been
built with libwrap support in the first
