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