Re: Is this mail list dead?

[James Antill <james@and.org>]

Crispin Cowan <crispin@wirex.com> writes:

> No there aren't.  There are a lot of *servants* (peer-to-peer server/client
> applications) that use high ports.  True *services* use well-defined ports below
> 1024, precisely so that they can be authoritative for that host.  If there are
> true services using high ports, then they had *better* be using strong crypto
> authentication (as was earlier suggested).  For reference, here's the port number
> assignments  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers

 Lookup MySQL, oracle has one at 66 but a whole bunch over
1024. Postgres is listed as 5432 on my machine, but isn't listed above.

 More than a few proxies are on "webcache" (list as in both debian and
RH-7.0, but listed as "http-alt" at the above site) aka. 8080.

> > i believe the < 1024 thing was for the benefit of things like
> > rlogin/rsh

 It was a nice idea, for a bunch of things ... but it didn't scale.
 Pity portmapper was such a buggy POS really (and a little too late).

> Where "things like" means "services", then yes :-)

 Lets take an example that I'm pretty familiar with...
 If you have a MUD hosting box, then all the muds are going to be on
difference user accounts ... and all going to be above 1024. Each of
these are services, and shouldn't interfer with each other.
 This problem is usually just hacked around by buy more equipment and
having each daemon on a seperate machine, which is a major MS solution
to the problem.

-- 
# James Antill -- james@and.org
:0:
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
/dev/null
-
Securedistros: A common list for all secured Linux distributions
Archive:       http://humbolt.nl.linux.org/lists/