Adding inetutils to LFS? (was Re: Reboot problem)
Greg T Hill
greghill at terranova.net
Wed Aug 16 03:02:17 PDT 2000
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> > inetutils contains:
> > telnet, ftp, rsh, rcp, rlogin, tftp, syslog, talk
> > inetd, ftpd, rshd, rlogind, telnetd, uucpd, rexecd, syslogd, tftpd, talkd
Except for syslog(d), all of the above are unnecessary functionally and most
are security risks. I installed inetd on my LFS system believing it to be a
good thing, it's standard, right? When I looked at my finished inetd.conf file,
I realized it did absolutely nothing. I run samba, nfs, and ssh as standalones.
I removed inetd.
> It's my opinion that a system is crippled when telnet is present. You
> really don't want to run that security risc. You really want to use ssh.
> Amen! ssh, scp, vnc over ssh right to your home X desktop. Is that
> > While I realize that for some people inetd is overkill, I think it would
> > be nice to have a LFS system that not only initializes the eth0 interface,
> > but also puts up a telnet daemon or ftp daemon so that authorized users
> > can get to their machine remotely.
....and unauthorized users as well, been there, done that, somebody stole my
> No need for inetd as most apps can run stand alone as well which most
> people prefer (and most systems nowadays don't have to concider the
> small amount of resources you save by using inetd - it takes a bit more
> in resources but you get a faster response time when running standalone
> which is better for me)
Today is Pungenday, the 9th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3166
Mail archive: http://www.pcrdallas.com/mail-archives/lfs-discuss
IRC access: server: irc.linuxfromscratch.org port: 6667 channel: #LFS
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)
More information about the lfs-dev