On Tuesday 21 January 2003 09:41, Kang, James wrote:
>So, is there a way to start amandad in stand-alone mode?
>
>James
>
>DK Smith wrote:
>> they are not related in the least...
>>
>> If you want to get some expert explanations that I do not have
>> time to give, you could ask the list...
>>
>> But in general, if this is the client's concern, then they are
>> probably missing opportunities for behaving in secure ways.
>> Having a standalone version of inetd does not make it any more
>> or less secure than if inetd or xinetd launches it.
>>
>>>Yes,
>>>
>>>My client doesn't want to use xinetd due to (hist) security
>>> issue though I am not really sure if stand-alone mode would be
>>> any better in security.
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: DK Smith
>>>To: Kang, James
>>>Sent: 1/15/03 9:02 PM
>>>Subject: RE: amandad without xinetd
>>>
>>>so you are asking if a stand-alone daemon style version
>>> exists... like sendmail runs as a daemon, listening to the port
>>> it listens to... ?

I think the whole point of the advice given so far should boil down 
to the client replacing his xinetd install with the latest, should 
be all security fixed, xinetd. AFAIK it shouldn't break anything 
else, it certainly hasn't here.

What specifically were their objections?  Maybe a newer xinetd has 
fixed the perceived problem?

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.22% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly