From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753848AbXLFMce (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:32:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752542AbXLFMc1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:32:27 -0500 Received: from mail.univits.se ([212.247.11.167]:1109 "EHLO mail.univits.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752354AbXLFMc1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:32:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4757EBC9.2050800@univits.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:32:09 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikael_St=E5ldal?= Organization: Univits User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: casey@schaufler-ca.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possibility to adjust the only-root-can-bind-to-port-under-1024 limit References: <554627.38779.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <554627.38779.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Casey Schaufler skrev: >> How do you protect ports greater than 1024 from any user binding to them? >> E.g. port 1080. > > Should the OS manage port number allocations? I don't think so > based on the notion of ports being names in an uncontrolled flat > namespace. The whole problem is that people want to make assumptions > about the applications providing services on a particular port, and > no amount of OS control is going to solve that one. This means that the OS should allow any user to bind to all ports, even those <1024. /Mikael