On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> I see... So you feel it's better to simply dare an attacker to try to
> invoke three hundred bajillion copies of say, fingerd. How novel. I
> can only hope the majority on the list realize why following your
> suggestion is very bad.

luckily, i think anyone that actually reads the entire man page would
understand that. ;) from FreeBSD's inetd(8),

"
-c maximum
Specify the default maximum number of simultaneous invocations of
each service; the default is unlimited. May be overridden on a
per-service basis with the "max-child" parameter.
-C rate
Specify the default maximum number of times a service can be
invoked from a single IP address in one minute; the default is
unlimited. May be overridden on a per-service basis with the
"max-connections-per-ip-per-minute" parameter.
-R rate
Specify the maximum number of times a service can be invoked in
one minute; the default is 256. A rate of 0 allows an unlimited
number of invocations.
-s maximum
Specify the default maximum number of simultaneous invocations of
each service from a single IP address; the default is unlimited.
May be overridden on a per-service basis with the "max-child-per-
ip" parameter.
"

so there are much better ways to address the problem in modern inetds.
also, OS' i use make installing inetd at all optional. furthermore, many
Linux' i'm familiar with make xinetd the default... so this is anything
but 'default insecurity'.

-mrh

--
From: "Spam Catcher" <spam-catcher (at) adept (dot) org [email concealed]>
To: spam-catcher (at) adept (dot) org [email concealed]
Do NOT send email to the address listed above or
you will be added to a blacklist!

[ reply ]