> In some mail I received from Malcolm Beattie, sie wrote
> >
> > Surely anonymous sockets shouldn't get bound to port numbers less
> > than 1024 (i.e. PROT_SOCK)? The kernel patch I made was a bit wrong
>
> Why not make "1024" configurable ? >:-) But in addition, to defining
> anonymous range, I'm suggesting also defining the "root-only" range
> with a similar variable.
Well, an interesting example of 'random ports' that get bound to a port #
below 1024, is ssh. ssh starts at 1023, and works DOWN... rather
interesting, if you ask me.
I was rather perplexed as to why, but I can only guess it's to avoid any
possibilities of another non-root program trying to bind at the same time?
-Taner
--
D. Taner Halicioglu taner@isi.net
Network Engineer ISI / GlobalCenter
Voice: +1 408 543 0313 Fax: +1 408 541 9878
PGP Fingerprint: 65 0D 03 A8 26 21 6D B8 23 3A D6 67 23 6E C0 36