# Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

Patrik Faltstrom (paf@nada.kth.se)
Tue, 25 Oct 1994 07:28:20 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Dave Brennan: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Reed Wade: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Reply: Reed Wade: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"

    Message-Id: <aad25500020210049b8e@[130.237.222.116]>

    Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 07:28:20 +0100

    To: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>, mitra@path.net, uri-request@mocha.bunyip.com

    From: paf@nada.kth.se (Patrik Faltstrom)

    Subject: Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

At 04.25 94-10-25, Rich Salz wrote:
>>I'd say this ought to be a secure port from the word go. There's already
>>enough concern about authentication, we might as well not open another
>>hole.
>
>It is foolish to think that a network service is secure because the
>server is listening on a particular port, or because the server requires
>clients to originate on a particular port. BSD did nobody any real
>favors when they came up with the "secure port" concept.

True, but I do want on my computer that a service like this is running
on a secure port even though it is not as secure as the word "secure port"
implies.

IF my server daemon dies, I don't want any user on my system to be able to
start a new daemon.

So, even though the security handled by just the port number is not so
high, I do want it.

paf

- Next message: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Dave Brennan: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Reed Wade: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Reply: Reed Wade: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"