On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:30:32PM +0200, rembrandt wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:01 +0000 > Michael Shalayeff <mic...@lucifier.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:51:01PM +0200, rembra...@jpberlin.de wrote: > > > > this does not add any security. > > > > > > I think differently: > > > http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1996/Feb/0023.html > > > > > > Also there is no loss during deactivating those services from my point of > > > view. > > > > you can know what uid inetd(8) is running on by reading > > the sources that are available publicly. > > cu > > You might miss the point Mickey. You can query the ID for any service. > Not just identd.
i did not say identd -- i said inetd. read carefully. otherwise i still do not see where is the value-added security here. what's next? you will restart an ancient conversation about syslogd udp socket? please... cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)