From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1392 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2003 08:35:00 -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 1306 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 08:34:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11907.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.191) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 08:34:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20031119083439.30737.qmail@web11907.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.245.10.50] by web11907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:34:39 PST Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:35:00 -0000 From: Mike Mestnik Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] security, cvs, was Re: interface bindings of x-server To: Keith Packard Cc: "roland@webde" , cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com, xserver@pdx.freedesktop.org, dri-devel In-Reply-To: <3FBB269A.9080306@tungstengraphics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 List-Id: ssh uses IP4:127.0.0.1, and as many times as ppl have asked for unix socket support it has allways been denied. -nolisten tcp is something for the distros to set up, it should be *usable by default. * Meaning all non-devel features on and nothing extra for the user to do. --- Keith Whitwell wrote: > Keith Packard wrote: > > Around 2 o'clock on Nov 19, "roland@webde" wrote: > > > > > >>Keith, could you put this (being able to specify the interface bindings of > >>the xserver on the commandline) as a feature request on http:// > >>www.freedesktop.org/Software/XserverWishlist if you find this feature > >>request useful ? i registerd a wiki account, but logging in doesn`t seem to > >>work for me. > > > > > > I'd like to switch the server so that -nolisten tcp is the default; I > > don't see much sense in having it listen to even 127.0.0.1. But, if you > > wanted to make the list of IP addresses that the server bound to > > configurable, that seems like a good idea. > > Yep - network transparency is all well & good, but do you really want > something as complex as the X server sitting there with an open port to the world? > > Keith > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree