From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5588 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2003 21:12:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-xfree-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com Reply-To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 5578 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 21:12:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.web.de) (217.72.192.209) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 21:12:25 -0000 Received: from [217.81.231.239] (helo=schlepptopp) by smtp.web.de with smtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #516) id 1AMZbz-00015k-00; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:11:44 +0100 Message-ID: <05ac01c3aee2$528dea20$2000000a@schlepptopp> From: "roland@webde" To: "Alan Coopersmith" Cc: "Keith Whitwell" , "Keith Packard" , , References: <3FBB269A.9080306@tungstengraphics.com> <054901c3ae7f$16b6bc60$2000000a@schlepptopp> <3FBBC5C8.9030808@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: security, cvs, was Re: interface bindings of x-server Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:12:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 List-Id: hi ! > > the only chance to get rid of it, is to use unix domain socket (via -nolisten tcp) OR to > > add the option, to specify the interface bindings and be able to bind it to local loopback > > ONLY. I`d prefer the second one. > > Why? What benefit does a TCP loopback connection provide over the Unix > domain socket (which is generally faster on most OS'es)? the benefit would be compatibility, IMHO. think of a scenario where cygwin/xfree86 + native win32 ssh client are combined. i`m sure, this isn`t too exotic - e.g. i know a _LOT_ of people who do ssh-tunneling via native win32 ssh client "putty" in combination with a local separate xserver on their windoze box. does anybody know if any "native" or "non cygwin based" ssh client on windows is able to use cygwin/xfree86 unix domain socket on win32 machine? i`m not sure - but i don`t think so. but, anyway - being able to bind to 127.0.0.1 would be just ONE "special case" of a more general "dedicated interface binding feature". nobody says , that you _should_ use 127.0.0.1 - but you always would have an option, to do so. i`m sysadmin - i like options. ;) > > feature seems to be in tightvnc already - so maybe we need just some code transfer (since vnc is xfree86 > > based) ? ;) > > Only if the original author of the tightvnc changes agrees to > distribute under the X license instead of tightvnc's GPL. oh - pardon! sure! thanks for bringing that back to my mind that this needs to be adressed! i`m currently digging into tightvnc to get sure it IS the appropriate code at all. regards roland