Re: About named port binding
From: Praise (praisetazio@tiscalinet.it)Date: 01/05/02
- Previous message: Bennett Todd: "Re: Locking Down a Linux Box"
- In reply to: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Jose Nazario: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: About named port binding"
- Reply: Jose Nazario: "Re: About named port binding"
- Reply: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Praise <praisetazio@tiscalinet.it> To: focus-linux@lists.securityfocus.com Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:42:54 +0100
Il 19:48, giovedì 3 gennaio 2002, Seth Arnold ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:55:31PM +0900, chulmin wrote:
> > I know that only root account bind a port below 1024.
> > and anyuser except root can bind or use a port above 1024.
>
> Heh, it isn't that simple, with POSIX 1.e capabilities. But, for 99.99%
> of all users, it is the case. Just be aware that the capabilities thing
> modifies this...
It sounds new to me. Can you give me a pointer to some basic information
about this?
Praise
- Previous message: Bennett Todd: "Re: Locking Down a Linux Box"
- In reply to: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Jose Nazario: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: About named port binding"
- Reply: Jose Nazario: "Re: About named port binding"
- Reply: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|