Re: Dynamic server ports

I agree with James on this.  It's just one more open port in the firewall.
It's just one more program running that has a chance to have a bug in it
that can be exploited.

It doesn't enhance anything.


On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, James Rich wrote:

> On 13 Dec 2001 thomas@inorbit.com wrote:
>
> > Essentially, you connect to port 449 and send in a name from the service
> > table such as "telnet" or "ddm" (case-sensitive and ASCII) and it
> > returns a 32-bit binary port number for that service. To see it in
> > action, just set up a comm trace and watch any PC connect. I have no
> > idea how the same is handled on other platforms; it'd sure make a nice
> > standard.
>
> Well IMNSHO the use of port 449 for this stuff is stupid.  Want to connect
> to the telnet server?  Use port 23.  Want to use other services?  Connect
> to the appropriate port.  But wait, that is what 449 is supposed to be:
> the appropriate port.  Why do we need a standard to tell us what is
> already an existing standard?
>
> Maybe you decide to move telnet off port 23 to help prevent abuse.  I can
> just connect to 449 to find out where it went.  Or do a port scan.  So
> what did we gain by using 449?  Nothing - just another firewall rule and
> added complexity.
>
> We already have a standard.  We don't need another one.
>
> p.s.  I'm not upset with anyone (though it may sound that way).  I'm just
> fed up with moronic Client Access that has this special need of port 449
> when my other 5250 clients work just fine without it.  Kind of like the
> Micorsoft paperclip:  fancy features I don't need or want and create
> headaches.
>