They don't want to run xinetd.
Is amandad capable of running "stand-alone" mode?

James


Gene Heskett wrote:

> 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?
>

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?