[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

"Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña" <jfs@computer.org> wrote in message [🔎] 20050923141655.GB29881@javifsp.no-ip.org">news:[🔎] 20050923141655.GB29881@javifsp.no-ip.org...

The same is true for other RPC servers. It's the libc that restricts the port
numbers (look at glibc-2.3.5/sunrpc/bindrsvprt.c, currently, it seems
it's  port = (PID % 424) + 600). And, as I've said, the libc maintainer is
not going to add a blacklist there for stuff in /etc/services. Please reread
the references I gave in my previous e-mail.

Um... libc *SHOULD NOT* be doing that.
A program should *NEVER* use a port in the range 1-1023 without registering the port with the IANA's well known port list.

It is alsa a bad idea to use a port in the range of 1024-49151 without registering.

If more privleged ports are needed it should be possible to have a system reserve a small portion of the dynamic/privare address space. (Dynamic use of ports outside this range is just asking for trouble.) I suspect it is the RPC system that is brain-dead.

Reply to: