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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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. >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.