Re: [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default

On May 11 2007 19:14, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>David Miller wrote:
>> 
>> All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
>> anyone.
>> 
>> Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
>> those things out themselves.
>
>However, there are a large number of applications which have registered
>ports in this range.

For more reference material, check up on http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/24/258
it is/was basically the same issue (multiple privileged programs fighting
their way in the 'lower half' @ 512-1023)


	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default
    • From: Mark Glines <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: fair clock use in CFS
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/14] Introduce union stack
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] ip_local_port_range sysctl has annoying default
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]