[ntp:hackers] unprivileged ntpd prototype

Terje Mathisen terje at tmsw.no
Tue Nov 3 22:57:05 UTC 2009


Danny Mayer wrote:
> Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> Brian Utterback wrote:
>>> 3. Re-visit the prohibition against using alternate ports.
>>
>> My vote is on (3):
>>
>> NTP might be the only protocol which cannot run over a non-standard
>> port, I really don't see how having this ability will hurt us.
>
> That's actually untrue. Nothing on the internet would work if services

Being available by default, YES.

Ability to listen on non-standard port, YES: This is typically needed 
for things like having a secondary web server on a single machine.

> were not available on a specific port. The key here is the listening

I know, I've done network programming since about 1986.

> port. The sending port does not matter. When was the last time you
> attempted an SMTP connection on to a service not listening on port 25 or

Actually in this very moment:
:-)

Sending this reply requires me to run SMTP to my personal server in the 
US which listens on a very non-standard port (and requires 
authentication of course!) in order to bypass my Norwegian fiber ISP's 
filtering of port 25 traffic.

> DNS on port 53? That's why they are required.

They have defaults which you can override. Port 53 is often very good 
for a custom VPN connection. :-)

Terje

-- 
- <Terje at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"


More information about the hackers mailing list