Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU!dab From: dab@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: port collisions Message-ID: <8605152016.AA14729@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 15-May-86 16:16:44 EDT Article-I.D.: BORAX.8605152016.AA14729 Posted: Thu May 15 16:16:44 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 17-May-86 04:37:43 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 19 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa Date: Thu, 15 May 86 12:04:14 EDT From: Ra I think there is a problem here. Due to obvious security reasons many of these protocols will need a low socket number and there are only 255 of those guaranteed to be available (UNIX extends that to 1023 but I don't think everyone can honor that.) Some small portion of that is already in use and if commercial trends continue I suspect many, many vendors will need a *secure* port for their products. -Barry Shein, Boston University As far as I've found, this belief that some ports are secure while others aren't is only implemented by Berkekley Unix. Since other IP implementations do not necessarily honor this belief, there is no security in using *secure* ports unless your network consists exclusively of machines running Berkelely Unix. David Bridgham