Roger Marquis wrote: > Aside from having more connection limiting features inetd is also > easier to configure on non-standard ports, uses less memory (1K vs > 5K), and has a simpler (and by extension more secure) code base. > "slimmy baddog" wrote: > I would strognly suggest that you dont use inetd for running services but > running all your services as daemons wich is much faster for the system >and safer. That used to be the recommendation, back when 50MHz CPUs were the norm. With 1 GHz and faster CPUs the difference between sshd and inetd starting a child sshd is in the millisecond range i.e, impossible to distinguish by look and feel. As to security I think both code bases have had about the same degree of peer review. The smaller size of the inetd code base is what makes it more secure. -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"