Is amandad capable of running "stand-alone" mode?
Please understand I am not trying to argue against your "default xinetd mode" solution with the latest xinetd.
James
Gene Heskett wrote:
> I think the whole point of the advice given so far should boil down
> to the client replacing his xinetd install with the latest, should
> be all security fixed, xinetd. AFAIK it shouldn't break anything
> else, it certainly hasn't here.
>
> What specifically were their objections? Maybe a newer xinetd has
> fixed the perceived problem?
>
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 09:41, Kang, James wrote:I think the whole point of the advice given so far should boil down to the client replacing his xinetd install with the latest, should be all security fixed, xinetd. AFAIK it shouldn't break anything else, it certainly hasn't here.So, is there a way to start amandad in stand-alone mode?James DK Smith wrote:they are not related in the least... If you want to get some expert explanations that I do not have time to give, you could ask the list... But in general, if this is the client's concern, then they are probably missing opportunities for behaving in secure ways. Having a standalone version of inetd does not make it any more or less secure than if inetd or xinetd launches it.Yes, My client doesn't want to use xinetd due to (hist) security issue though I am not really sure if stand-alone mode would be any better in security. -----Original Message----- From: DK Smith To: Kang, James Sent: 1/15/03 9:02 PM Subject: RE: amandad without xinetd so you are asking if a stand-alone daemon style version exists... like sendmail runs as a daemon, listening to the port it listens to... ?
What specifically were their objections? Maybe a newer xinetd has fixed the perceived problem?
