Re: Re: Some fun with tcp_wrappers

[wietse () porcupine org (Wietse Venema)]

Tomas Hoger:
> $ cat hosts.allow hosts.deny
> foobar: localhost
> foobar: ALL: DENY
> cat: hosts.deny: No such file or directory
>
> $ ./test-hostsctl -d foobar unknown 127.0.0.1 unknown
> denied
>
> (this is expected to be allowed)

My software behaves exactly as documented.

The hostsctl is called with a name of "unknown" and an address of
"127.0.0.1". There is no access rule that matches "unknown",
therefore, no such access rule will fire.

> $ cat hosts.allow hosts.deny
> foobar: localhost: DENY
> cat: hosts.deny: No such file or directory
>
> $ ./test-hostsctl -d foobar unknown 127.0.0.1 unknown
> allowed
>
> (this is expected to be denied)

Again, the software behaves exactly as documented.

The hostsctl is called with a name of "unknown" and an address of
"127.0.0.1". There is no access rule that matches "unknown",
therefore, no such access rule will fire.

> "test-hostsctl servicename unknown IP unknown" is what some
> applications do expecting tcp_wrappers to resolve IP to hostname.

I think that it would be a mistake to change a documented API that
has been in use for almost 20 years, just because some people can't
be bothered to read the API documentation.

        Wietse