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)
