From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from beaver.sibername.com ([64.15.155.210]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HpcHL-0004nk-00 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 23:40:19 -0400 Received: from d226-69-186.home.cgocable.net ([24.226.69.186] helo=tenstac) by beaver.sibername.com with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HpcGq-0002i0-21 for speakup@braille.uwo.ca; Sat, 19 May 2007 23:39:48 -0400 Message-ID: <001801c79a99$1bb24450$ab00a8c0@tenstac> From: "Doug Sutherland" To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." References: <003b01c79a65$3b5689d0$6501a8c0@GRANDMA><5DDB0BF1-F87A-48F3-9992-6B241EE3AC66@softcon.com><005701c79a6c$3bafc930$6501a8c0@GRANDMA> <000b01c79a8a$02d50df0$6501a8c0@GRANDMA> Subject: Re: shell script request? possibly? Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 23:41:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - beaver.sibername.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - braille.uwo.ca X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - proficio.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 03:40:20 -0000 Regarding ip_deny perhaps what was meant was the hosts.deny and hosts.allow files. These only relate to tcpwrappers, the tcpd or inetd daemons which can control port access. I personally think such "super" daemons are dangerous and do not run them at all. One process, inetd, or similar, has the ability to open any or all ports, seems like a great possible target to compromise a system. Using hosts.deny is not equivalent to the iptables, which will drop packets at the firewall, I think Tyler's intention is a good one, better than deny by the tcpwrapper process. > I don't have an ip.deny file