I'm unable to get antiword to process standard input over a network
connection using xinetd. I've got the following in /etc/xinetd.d:
service antiword
{
disable = no
type= UNLISTED
flags += IPv4
socket_type
Short answer:
It's not possible.
Long answer:
After the research it took me, I'm just too damned lazy to write it up. Just
trust me, can't be done.
Hal
On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> I'm using a small program that's started by xinetd.
I'm using a small program that's started by xinetd. The incoming signal to it
would be a broadcast signal, which means it has to be UDP.
I wrote two versions of the test program, one in Perl and one as a bash script
and both ran into the same problem.
They worked fine when I first s
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Gregory Seidman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> xinetd uses separate configuration files for each of the services it
> provides (assuming your /etc/xinetd.conf has the line "includedir
> /etc/xinetd.d" per the Debian default). Part of
t; >> port was still open, but changed its service description to "auth?".
> >
> > Did you restart xinetd after removing pidentd?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ansgar
>
> Thank you - I restarted xinetd and the port seems to be closed now (at
> least accordi
ident. I am trying to
>> remove this service since I don't think I need it, but I can't figure
>> out how. I removed the package pidentd, after which nmap reported the
>> port was still open, but changed its service description to "auth?".
>
> Did you re
> port 113 was open. Nmap listed the service as ident. I am trying to
> >> remove this service since I don't think I need it, but I can't figure
> >> out how. I removed the package pidentd, after which nmap reported the
> >> port was still open, but
need it, but I can't figure
out how. I removed the package pidentd, after which nmap reported the
port was still open, but changed its service description to "auth?".
Did you restart xinetd after removing pidentd?
Since the superserver only activates processes on demand, does i
e
> out how. I removed the package pidentd, after which nmap reported the
> port was still open, but changed its service description to "auth?".
Did you restart xinetd after removing pidentd?
Regards,
Ansgar
--
PGP: 1024D/595FAD19 739E 2D09 0969 BEA9 9797 B055 DDB0 2FF7 595F A
e
port was still open, but changed its service description to "auth?".
I have no other identd related packages installed on my system. I
used netstat to find the process listening on port 113 and it seems to
be xinetd. The exact listing of the process in `ps` is
root 6766 1 0 17:
sten on different address (192.168.0.1).
>
> However xinetd does not allow me to do that and it seems linux kernel does
> the same:
>
> xinetd[31311]: service: ident id: ident is unique but
> its identical to service: ident id: ident-cgiirc - DISABLING
>
> 06/11/[EMAIL PROT
Hello,
I am trying run different servers on different addresses but the same port.
I have "generic" pidentd listening on wildcard addresses (0.0.0.0) and want
different ident server listen on different address (192.168.0.1).
However xinetd does not allow me to do that and it seems li
If the file "/etc/inetd.conf" contains only comment or empty lines, with
the package "openbsd-inetd" installed inetd is not started at boot-up.
Regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11.09.06 19:51, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> But I wonder why netbase depends on inetd.
because many packages depending on netbase depends on it because of inetd
(inetd was some time ago in netbase). See:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=154441;archive=yes
However they imho should
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: Funnily enough `apt-get remove openbsd-inetd' says that a whole bunch of
> packages depend on it:
> Looks like bugs in the dependencies in `testing'.
I don't think they depend directly on inetd. It seems netbase depends
on openbsd-inetd, and a whol
Please look at
#385320: Users of xinetd can't remove openbsd-inetd
Bye,
Stefan Monnier wrote:
I would say that the choice between the two is defined not by how
'professional' your host is, but rather by the hostility of the
networking environment. Xinetd can limit the number
> I would say that the choice between the two is defined not by how
> 'professional' your host is, but rather by the hostility of the
> networking environment. Xinetd can limit the number of connections and
> running processes, preventing some DoS attacks. Xinetd also
On 9/8/06, Ismael Valladolid Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a
professional setup. xinetd is far more featured, though, and it's been
the default for Red Hat systems for years.
I would say that the choice between
T escribe:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:12:48 +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
>
> >> ...I'd like to know whether
> >> inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
> >
> > inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also f
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:12:48 +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
>> ...I'd like to know whether
>> inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
>
> inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a
> professional setup.
Thanks Ism
> > On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:56, T wrote:
> > > Hope I'm not starting a religious war here, but I'd like to know
> > > whether inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
I prefer xinetd anywhere. IT's better configurable, even if so
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:58:49 -0700
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:56, T wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Hope I'm not starting a religious war here, but I'd like to know
> > whether inetd or xinetd is preferred for a
T escribe:
> Hope I'm not starting a religious war here, but I'd like to know whether
> inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a
professional setup. xinetd is far more featured, though, a
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:56, T wrote:
> Hi
>
> Hope I'm not starting a religious war here, but I'd like to know whether
> inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
I like openbsd-inetd because it's straightforward, lightweight and got the
O
T:
>
> # /etc/init.d/inetd has been diverted by the xinetd package.
> # The inetd service is provided by xinetd, which means inetd
> # doesn't need to be run.
> #
> # See /etc/init.d/xinetd, or /etc/init.d/inetd.real.
>
> exit 0
> -----
Hi
Hope I'm not starting a religious war here, but I'd like to know whether
inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.
In my current system:
$ cat /etc/init.d/inetd
#!/bin/sh
# /etc/init.d/inetd has been diverted by the xinetd pack
gt; Sent: Tuesday, 25 April, 2006 10:45:06 AM
> > Subject: vnc+gdm+xinetd
> >
> > this is the configuration file for xinetd
> >
> > service vnc-800x600
> > {
> > only_from = 192.168.2.0
> > disable = no
> > socket_type = stream
>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:30:09AM -0700, Matt Johnson wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message
> From: Ferran Donadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 April, 2006 10:45:06 AM
> Subject: vnc+gdm+xinetd
>
> this is
- Original Message
From: Ferran Donadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April, 2006 10:45:06 AM
Subject: vnc+gdm+xinetd
this is the configuration file for xinetd
service vnc-800x600
{
only_from = 192.168.2.0
disable = no
socke
-1024x768 5901/tcp
this is the configuration file for xinetd
service vnc-800x600
{
only_from = 192.168.2.0
disable = no
socket_type = stream
protocol= tcp
wait= no
user= nobody
server = /usr/bin/Xvnc4
server_args = -inetd -query localhost -geomet
--- Rick Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply put... being the relative newbie that I am, is there an
> advantage to
> having the xinetd package rather than netkit-inetd? Currently, I have
>
> netkit-inetd installed. Would I be better off removing it and
&
Rick Friedman wrote:
> Simply put... being the relative newbie that I am, is there an advantage to
> having the xinetd package rather than netkit-inetd? Currently, I have
> netkit-inetd installed. Would I be better off removing it and installing
> xinetd?
That depends solely o
Simply put... being the relative newbie that I am, is there an advantage to
having the xinetd package rather than netkit-inetd? Currently, I have
netkit-inetd installed. Would I be better off removing it and installing
xinetd?
Any insight is greatly appreciated.
Rick
--
Rick's Law:
es to connect to ypops I get
> the message "Could not connect to server localhost; the connection was
> refused" and a quick port scan shows that no service is listening for
> activity on port 3495.
Did you restart xinetd? Did it start the new service properly? Have a look
Hi!
I've compiled and installed yahoopops. It works fine when I run it
manually on port 3495 but I would like xinetd to do the job for me. So,
I added the following lines to /etc/xinetd.conf:
service unlisted
{
type= UNLISTED
socket
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 01:30:12AM -0500, Will Trillich said
> something is making our xinetd process self-terminate, which
> throws a monkey wrench into sending and receiving email... and
> we'd like to know what we can do to find out a) what's sending
> these signals,
something is making our xinetd process self-terminate, which
throws a monkey wrench into sending and receiving email... and
we'd like to know what we can do to find out a) what's sending
these signals, and b) how to stop it...
from /var/log/syslog this morning --
Apr 6 06:36:16 b
xinetd dies on occasion, and we'd love to know why (and what to
do about it). any rtfm (with 'm' indicator) or other pointers
gladly accepted.
from /var/log/syslog this morning --
Apr 6 06:36:16 boss xinetd[10615]: {general_handler} (10615) Unexpected signal: 11
(Segmentation f
rhost
mismatch (null) != (null).
Does anyone know if it's possible to force xinetd/pam to return an rhost
to PAM regardless? Or a better way of doing it?
My xinetd.d/imap2 looks like this;
service imap2
{
flags = REUSE NAMEINARGS
socket_type = stream
proto
Result:
Installation of distcc on a system running xinetd, results in reference to
non existint documentation concerning correct configuration of distcc
after installtion.
Expected Result:
Distcc should add xinetd entry if needed, or refer to existing
documentation,which should have a sample entry
Hello Jonathan!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:31:47AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:07:58AM +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:46:04PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
>I was a little surprised to find that I could not then remove the inetd
>package.
Some ra
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:07:58AM +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:46:04PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> >I was a little surprised to find that I could not then remove the inetd
> >package.
>
> Some rather old issue, see
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=68
Hello Tom!
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:46:04PM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
I was playing with xinetd on another distro and decided that I kind of
liked it and wanted to install it onto my debian distro.
Well, I wouldn't like to miss its extended features either.
I was a little surprised to
> I was playing with xinetd on another distro and decided that I kind of
> liked it and wanted to install it onto my debian distro.
>
> I was a little surprised to find that I could not then remove the inetd
> package.
>
> Does this mean that I have both 'super serv
I was playing with xinetd on another distro and decided that I kind of
liked it and wanted to install it onto my debian distro.
I was a little surprised to find that I could not then remove the inetd
package.
Does this mean that I have both 'super servers' installed at once?
Isn&#x
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:17:18 -0500,
"Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Greetings:
>
> As I setup my debian box, I installed xinetd so it would be more like
> the RH setups I was used to. The change seemed to go fine whe
>Can you 'apt-get remove telnetd'? I mean, if you are going to have
it
>disabled, why not just uninstall it?
Well, I could, but I was more concerned that I had xinetd configured
properly. I found my problem, dumb mistake I had disable = telnet
insteadof the correct "disa
Hello
Scott (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> As I setup my debian box, I installed xinetd so it would be more like
> the RH setups I was used to. The change seemed to go fine when I
> installed it via dselect. I expected a conflict with inetd, but got
> no complaint. I did
Scott wrote:
Greetings:
As I setup my debian box, I installed xinetd so it would be more like
the RH setups I was used to. The change seemed to go fine when I
installed it via dselect. I expected a conflict with inetd, but got
no complaint. I did get a message that the jist was nothing that
Greetings:
As I setup my debian box, I installed xinetd so it would be more like
the RH setups I was used to. The change seemed to go fine when I
installed it via dselect. I expected a conflict with inetd, but got
no complaint. I did get a message that the jist was nothing that had
been
) on the same machine, using
xinetd. This in order to facilitate several datasources (websites
and such) that are not heavily demanded and to combine them on a
single HA-platform. (I would prefer to use the virtual machines
that the 2.6 kernel seems to promise, but it's not there yet, as
f
Hi All,
want to run several instances of the same application
(apache, sshd, whatever...) with different configurations on
separated secondary addresses with their original port numbers
(e.g. eth0:1 192.168.123.1:80 httpd www.acme.com and eth0:2
172.16.1.1:80 httpd www.whitehouse.gov) Thi
After I ran apt-get dist-upgrade my firewall is totaly out. When booting
I see alot of xinetd warnings, but they flash by to fast so I can't read
them and at the end there's something about iptables. Tried to look
though /var/log to see if I could find anything, but no luck.
When c
very slow and "top" shows that xinetd
is using between 90% and 98% of the cpu. netstat did not show any
strange connections.
How can I determine what is keeping xinetd busy?
Regards.
Johann
--
Johann Spies Telefoon: 021-808 4036
Informasietegnologie, Universiteit v
RB said on Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:15:21PM -0400:
> I'm planning on switching a server of mine from inetd and
> tcpd over to xinetd. I'm wondering if there is any benefit to
> using tcpd with xinetd?
> It looks to me that xinetd combines the features of inetd and
> tcp
RB said on Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:15:21PM -0400:
> I'm planning on switching a server of mine from inetd and tcpd over to
> xinetd. I'm wondering if there is any benefit to using tcpd with xinetd?
Nope. xinetd links with libwrap, which is what tcpd uses.
> It looks to me t
Howdy All,
I'm planning on switching a server of mine from inetd and tcpd over to
xinetd. I'm wondering if there is any benefit to using tcpd with xinetd?
It looks to me that xinetd combines the features of inetd and tcpd into
one process.
Thanks,
RB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
After a recent woody upgrade I've been noticing some logging by xinetd
and identd. The entries are, for example :
Feb 21 23:34:20 dman xinetd[27628]: warning: can't get client address:
Transport endpoint is not connected
Feb 21 23:34:21 dman identd[27628]: started
Feb 21 23:34:28
l range directions from my local net.
But in the first machine (primer), portmap isn't installed and its
functionality is suplied by xinetd. And in xinetd.conf I have
only_from = 192.168.7.0
only_from += 127.0.0.1
Now the problem is how to tell to xinitd for a range of IP numbers
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:47:27PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
[ martin didn't write this, chris wagner did ]
> > Come on... there are only 4 ip numbers in a /30!!! The only
> > conceivable use for a /30 is as a point-to-point. /29 maybe for cable
> > modem LANs...
/30s are also used when a
also sprach Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0616 +0100]:
> >okay, why libwrap then?
>
> Once the network is compromised, it makes no difference what's on the box.
> If done properly, the compromised network is indistinguishable from the
> uncompromised network. That box is totally on
At 06:01 AM 1/11/02 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
>okay, why libwrap then?
Once the network is compromised, it makes no difference what's on the box.
If done properly, the compromised network is indistinguishable from the
uncompromised network. That box is totally on it's own. :)
>/29, although
also sprach Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0541 +0100]:
> This is sort of the function of canonical names. "Other" names for the IP
> besides the absolute name (or Loopback name in our parlance). But CNAME's
> are deprecated for other reasons. I personally never had any problems us
also sprach Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0556 +0100]:
> >a bogus IP won't even make it past OSI layer 4 on debian...
> >rp_filter...
>
> There are ways of doing it such that the box has NO WAY of knowing
> that the traffic is spoofed. Granted, that is hard to do. Even
> paranoid
At 04:22 AM 1/11/02 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
>a bogus IP won't even make it past OSI layer 4 on debian... rp_filter...
There are ways of doing it such that the box has NO WAY of knowing that the
traffic is spoofed. Granted, that is hard to do. Even paranoid lookups can
be overcome. But it'
At 10:01 PM 1/10/02 -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>Congratulations ... you just set up your DNS incorrectly. Every PTR
>entry should resolve to a _unique_ name, and that name should resolve
>to a _unique_ IP. That doesn't mean you can't have additional A
>records doing load balancing.
To give a
also sprach Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0501 +0100]:
> Congratulations ... you just set up your DNS incorrectly. Every PTR
> entry should resolve to a _unique_ name, and that name should resolve
> to a _unique_ IP. That doesn't mean you can't have additional A
> records doing
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:29:08AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> i think you need to know exactly what this checks to get a clue...
>
> first, the IP is taken and reverse-resolved to a domain name. then the
> domain name is resolved to an IP. if that IP doesn't match, it'll DENY.
>
> now if 1.2
also sprach Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0205 +0100]:
> Well, the rationale behind this is as you touched on, preventing
> spoofed address attacks. A paranoid lookup essentially verifies that
> the connecting system is a known legit host. In effect you're using
> your DNS system a
Well, the rationale behind this is as you touched on, preventing spoofed
address attacks. A paranoid lookup essentially verifies that the connecting
system is a known legit host. In effect you're using your DNS system as
another level of authentication. Say somebody wants to covertly log on or
a
also sprach Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0058 +0100]:
> > it's not really a security measure anymore, i find. feel free to
> > disagree...
>
> Disabling PARANOID mode only means that you shouldn't trust the logged
> hostnames, because thay may be faked, no?
kinda. it also tries
also sprach Sam Varghese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0053 +0100]:
> i can only speak from my limited experience. i have found these measures
> to work, therefore i practice them. of course, one would agree to
> disagree.
i don't want to come across as the wannabe-guru, but what exactly do you
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:11:13AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> it's not really a security measure anymore, i find. feel free to
> disagree...
Disabling PARANOID mode only means that you shouldn't trust the logged
hostnames, because thay may be faked, no?
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROT
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:11:13AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > If a host does not match its IP, your system SHOULD deny it access.
>
> i actually disagree. (a) these days, many run their own DNS even though
> the IP belongs to someone else and is only leased to a "home user". (b)
> you would
also sprach Sam Varghese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2323 +0100]:
> Why would you want to remove your first line of defence? Do you want the
> whole world to have access to the box in question?
that doesn't mean allowing access to the whole world!
> If a host does not match its IP, your syste
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:41:37PM +0100, Davi Leal wrote:
> Is It safe to delete the ALL:PARANOID line in /etc/hosts.deny to avoid the
> below messages in /var/log/syslog?
>
> Jan 22 12:13:46 excalibur xinetd[254]: warning: /etc/hosts.deny, line 15:
> can't verify hos
:13:46 excalibur xinetd[254]: warning: /etc/hosts.deny, line 15:
can't verify hostname: gethostbyname(geicamdsl.easynet.es) failed
Jan 22 12:13:46 excalibur xinetd[254]: refused connect from 213.139.10.34
/etc/hosts.deny
# The PARANOID wildcard matches any host whose name
> Does your /etc/init.d/xinetd not have the following?
> You shouldn't have to modify it at all; just use
> /etc/init.d/xinetd reload
hmm seems to work. i coulda sworn ive tried it several
times in the past and it did not work
thanks
nate
* nate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011130 12:23]:
>
>
> > I haven't used xinetd, but just read (1) that it'll reread
> > its config files from a USR2 signal. Does that not work, or
> > perhaps is it not sufficient?
>
> woah. yeah that worked :) thanks!
>
&
> I haven't used xinetd, but just read (1) that it'll reread
> its config files from a USR2 signal. Does that not work, or
> perhaps is it not sufficient?
woah. yeah that worked :) thanks!
in most other programs ive used -12 always has the program
exit .most useful f
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:20:38PM -0800, nate wrote:
>
> in my experience .
>
> pros to xinetd:
> ...
> cons:
> - any change in xinetd requires a RESTART. kill -HUP won't do it. and
> this can cause problems if you have sockets in use(e.g. you run a mail
&g
> From reading about xinetd lately, I thought I'd like to try using
> it instead of the traditional inetd.
>
in my experience .
pros to xinetd:
- easy to have a service bind to a single interface(like localhost)
- faster and more robust then inetd
- has fine grain acces
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 12:57:19PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| From reading about xinetd lately, I thought I'd like to try using it
| instead of the traditional inetd.
|
| However, I find that the netbase package, on which almost all networking
| software seems to depend, even if
>From reading about xinetd lately, I thought I'd like to try using it
instead of the traditional inetd.
However, I find that the netbase package, on which almost all networking
software seems to depend, even if only indirectly, depends on
netkit-inetd. So it seems to be impossible to remo
I am cutting out the past writing in the interest space. The answer
turned on the xinetd entry, hosts.allow, and hosts.deny. Thanks
Mike, for suggesting xinetd configuration issues. I was thinking in
terms of one machine providing the proper information to another.
I had the wait line in the
On Mon, 2001-11-12 at 11:43, Brian P. Flaherty wrote:
> Michael Heldebrant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2001-11-11 at 12:16, Brian P. Flaherty wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am trying to run an rsync server from xinetd. I have a deskt
Michael Heldebrant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2001-11-11 at 12:16, Brian P. Flaherty wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am trying to run an rsync server from xinetd. I have a desktop
> > connected via eth0 to a DSL line and eth1 connected to a little hub
On Sun, 2001-11-11 at 12:16, Brian P. Flaherty wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to run an rsync server from xinetd. I have a desktop
> connected via eth0 to a DSL line and eth1 connected to a little hub.
> My laptop is on the hub too. When I start the rsync server from the
> pr
Hello,
I am trying to run an rsync server from xinetd. I have a desktop
connected via eth0 to a DSL line and eth1 connected to a little hub.
My laptop is on the hub too. When I start the rsync server from the
prompt, I can access it from my laptop just fine (on the internal
network). But, when
I'm using a trick I've just learned to try triggering VNC sessions from
xinetd. See for more info:
http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=6286
My own configuration is included below.
The problem:
Launching xvncviewer :50 gives me an X session and a
Hi All!
I'm running potato (2.2r3). I have xinetd and proftpd running on my
machine. Right now, proftpd runs in standalone mode and xinetd has NO entry
about it.
However, i'd like to be able to run proftpd FROM xinetd... I went around
the docs (FAQ's
, now I am using a machine with xinetd
-> (Version 2.1.8.9pre11) and I cannot get the service to be used
-> twice -- it works once, then xinetd quits!
->
-> The xinetd.d directory entry I am using contains:
-> service httpd-redir
-> {
-> identifier = httpd-redir
->
Greetings friends. Perhaps someone here can help me. (BTW -- a CC
would sure be nice, if you reply. :)
I am trying to build a short and sweet http redirector using the
twist function from hosts_options(5). I did this before, with ftp,
and inetd. Trouble is, now I am using a machine with xinetd
On Dec 05 2000, Sam TH wrote:
[About tcp-server]
> Sadly, that means it is non-free since djb doesn't believe in free
> software.
> :-(
Yes, this is indeed the case. If you can't have free software
in your computers, then that is indeed a pity.
But if you can, then you m
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 01:33:21AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> try tcpserver is suppose to be very secure replacement for inetd, it
> was written by the same guy who wrote qmail - secure replacement for
> sendmail.
>
Sadly, that means it is non-free since djb doesn't believe in free
softwar
osting. Thanks for the info. One of these
> > days when I reinstall Debian on my FW system, I will use xinetd instead
> > of inetd.
>
> curious what do you need (x)inetd for on a firewall? perhaps the only
> daemon running on such a system is ssh..which by default runs outside
"S.Salman Ahmed" wrote:
> Finally, the sole reply to my posting. Thanks for the info. One of these
> days when I reinstall Debian on my FW system, I will use xinetd instead
> of inetd.
curious what do you need (x)inetd for on a firewall? perhaps the only
daemon running on s
-> Is it better to user xinetd vs. regular inetd on a firewall box ?
it's better to use xinetd then inetd at all.
-> Also, why isn't xinetd used in debian by default ?
1. its harder to configure (but more powerful)
2. update-inetd doesn't recognize its format (afaik)
* Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [221100 12:12]:
> Debian Users,
>
> I'm trying to be security conscious. I've heard xinetd is the way to
> go when it comes to an internet super-server so I apt-get installed it. Only
> problem is that I can't get it to
protocol= tcp
> RAJ> wait= no
> RAJ> user= mail
> RAJ> server = /usr/sbin/exim
> RAJ> server_args = -bs
> RAJ> }
>
>
> RAJ>
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
