Vulnerability Development: xinetd vs tcpserver (Was: .: 14x :: Generic Vuln - Many Vendors & Operating Systems :.)

[Jamie Fifield <fifield () GHOST NSLUG NS CA>]

Why?

Everyone seems to say that tcpserver is better than xinetd.  But looking
over it's functionality, xinetd has everything and more than tcpserver, and
xinetd is under active development.

(btw, the URL is http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html)

I can understand, that when xinetd was first started, it had a number of
rough edges and tcpserver was better.  Is that still the case?  I am quite
happy with xinetd and to be honest, it alone can make a decent firewall.

On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 07:55:05AM -0400, Greg Mortensen wrote:
> An even better solution would be Dan Bernstein's tcpserver:
>
> http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html/tcpserver.html
>
>   Regards,
>     Greg
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Ex Machina wrote:
>
> > XINETD (www.xinetd.org) provides a flexible way of defending against these
> > type of attacks. I suggest you all check it out.
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Erik Tayler wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> > > Obviously there are ways to prevent this, such as setting limits on number of connections, tools such as 
> > > portsentry, et cetera. But it seems that nobody has made any great strides to stop this sort of thing, and I 
> > > believe it would be a good idea to do so. If anybody has any comments/ideas/feedback/flames, please e-mail me. 
> > > Thank you.
> \|/   ___   \|/        loki () world std com        +----- 2048/83C90191 -----+
>  @~./'O o`\.~@                                   | 0B 65 E0 58 F3 F9 81 F5 |
> /__( \___/ )__\  Crypto, Security, and Phrack:   | F0 72 75 FA 1E BD C9 66 |
>    `\__`U_/'       http://world.std.com/~loki    +--- via Finger or WWW ---+
--
Jamie Fifield
<fifield () chebucto ns ca>