[ITP] tftp-hpa 5.0

[Gernot Hillier]

Hi there!

Am 04.10.2010 17:24, schrieb Charles Wilson:
>>> Hmmm...now that I think about it, it would be really great if the
>>> package name(s) themselves were simply tftp-5.0-N tftp-server-5.0-N
>>> Users aren't going to CARE that the implementation/source came from
>>> the 'tftp-hpa' distribution.
>> Ic. I'm not that of a Cygwin expert so I just trust your opinion here.
>> Changing the package accordingly is fine for me. (Keeping inetutils'
>> tftp implementation was just a quick idea w/o thinking about the
>> conflict resolving stuff).
>
> OK. My revised package does this.

Ok, so I'll wait for your update...

> And that's great; obviously your internal team can continue to use what
> you have, until the revised version comes along.  In fact, it's great
> that you have an in-place testing environment; we can easily make sure
> that the revised versions don't break anything.

... and try to push it into our product's mainline which should be well 
possible in the next weeks. However, please note that we don't use IPv6 
and have no testbed for this.

> That makes sense.  However, as we/I are *very* enthusiastic about
> deleting inetutils' tftp in favor of tftp-hpa, now's the time to make
> that investment.

:-) Let me know when I can help.

>> That's the reason why I didn't spend any effort on this yet and why I
>> personally don't see this as a top-prio.
>
> Well, it should Just Work(tm); tcp_wrappers does all the heavy lifting.
>   We'll see.

Yes, I'll have a look on it as soon as I receive your update.

> Well, that's true of most insecure services.  However, tftp-hpa DOES
> drop privileges (assuming we un-#ifdef-out that stuff), so it NEEDS an
> unprivileged user to change to.  Since windows doesn't have a default
> 'nobody' user (other than Guest, and often that account is disabled
> entirely), we need a script to create one.  Even if it doesn't install
> the service.

Convinced.

-- 
Gernot