[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