|
|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Register | Rules & FAQ | Members List | Arcade | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Security Anything involving computer security goes here. |
Other UNIX.COM Threads You Might Find Helpful
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Can't start telnetd | ONEX | SUN Solaris | 4 | 02-15-2007 06:33 AM |
| telnetd bug! | pressy | SUN Solaris | 3 | 02-14-2007 11:09 PM |
| in.telnetd[5115] -- compromised? | LowOrderBit | IP Networking | 1 | 09-19-2001 06:42 PM |
| Linux and in.telnetd problems | sam_pointer | UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers | 3 | 08-31-2001 05:27 AM |
 |
|
|
Submit Tools | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
07-21-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
telnetd vs telnetd -a
Hi folks. I have a quick question on using "telnetd" vs. "telnetd -a".
OS: AIX 5.x (5.1 through 5.3 ML3) Some engineers at work want to stop using "telnetd -a" and use "telnetd". (and of course, if I could get a cogent answer from them, I wouldn't be posting this question...)  The man page for telnetd suggests that "telnetd -a" offers improved performance as follows: -a Causes the PTY and socket to be linked directly in the kernel so that the data handling remains in the kernel to improve the performance. I don't see a security issue here, so I'm guessing that there might be a memory issue related to this. Barring a call to IBM (which I'm about to make), does anyone have a quick answer as to why *not* to use -a, or which option is preferred?  Thanks! -Dave 
|
|||
| Google UNIX.COM |
| Forum Sponsor | ||
|
|
Linear Mode
