Amanda-Users

RE: tcpserver

2003-02-24 20:53:29
Subject: RE: tcpserver
From: Casey Shobe <cshobe AT secureworks DOT com>
To: "'amanda-users AT amanda DOT org'" <amanda-users AT amanda DOT org>, Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17 AT duke DOT edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:36:46 -0500
Well, I'm using xinetd as a (hopefully) temporary solution.  The security
issues are my primary concern for not wanting to use it.  I prefer to run
everything as a standalone daemon if possible (i.e. sshd, httpd, xfs, etc.).
xinetd was easy enough to get working though, and I've currently got Amanda
working as a client on my server.

I knew that Amanda used UDP, so that's why I wasn't sure about the tcpserver
(http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html) solution...

I also remember seeing a udpserver (based on tcpserver I think) months ago
somewhere, but I'm not sure of it's maturity, and can't seem to find it now.

As mentioned, I've got a working setup now, but would be very interested in
hearing any possible alternatives to *inetd.  The host system is linux.

Thanks!

-- 
Casey Allen Shobe / Software Developer & Linux Administrator
SecureWorks, Inc. / 404.327.6339 x169 / Fax: 404.728.0144
cshobe AT secureworks DOT net / http://www.secureworks.net

"Mathematics are a medium mankind created when trying to map existance."
  -- Valdimar Björn Ásgeirsson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods AT weird DOT com]
> Sent: 24. febrúar 2003 22:51
> To: Joshua Baker-LePain
> Cc: Casey Shobe; amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
> Subject: Re: tcpserver
> 
> 
> [ On Monday, February 24, 2003 at 12:37:47 (-0500), Joshua 
> Baker-LePain wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: tcpserver
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 at 11:50am, Casey Shobe wrote
> > 
> > > Is there any way to make amanda work in standalone mode 
> or with tcpserver?
> > > I really do not want to have to install inetd...
> > > 
> > xinetd works quite well
> 
> Perhaps for some folks, but certianly not for all!
> 
> Note also that for all intents and proposes xinetd is an inetd.
> 
> > and is much more secure than inetd.
> 
> I seriously doubt that.  In fact I believe there's ample proof to the
> contrary with several security advisories against xinetd and none that
> I'm aware of against at least the *BSD inetds.
> 
> Also note that most (all?) of the *BSD inetds include integrated hooks
> to TCP Wrappers.
> 
> Finally note that Amanda doesn't just use TCP -- it also uses UDP and
> you really can't use libwrap effectively on most UDP services.
> 
> -- 
>                                                               
> Greg A. Woods
> 
> +1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods AT ieee DOT org>;           
> <woods AT robohack DOT ca>
> Planix, Inc. <woods AT planix DOT com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird 
> <woods AT weird DOT com>
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>