Re: About named port binding
From: Jose Nazario (jose@biocserver.BIOC.cwru.edu)Date: 01/07/02
- Previous message: Jason Lim: "Re: Locking Down a Linux Box"
- In reply to: Praise: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: About named port binding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:47:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jose Nazario <jose@biocserver.BIOC.cwru.edu> To: Praise <praisetazio@tiscalinet.it>
in 2.0 kernels, at least, a certain group range could bind to privilidged
ports. i do not know (because i haven't looked) if this was removed for
2.2 or 2.4. if not, its worth looking at.
alternatively it could probably be coded into the kernel (make the uid 0
check actually a gid range check, ie gid < 12).
____________________________
jose nazario jose@cwru.edu
PGP: 89 B0 81 DA 5B FD 7E 00 99 C3 B2 CD 48 A0 07 80
PGP key ID 0xFD37F4E5 (pgp.mit.edu)
- Previous message: Jason Lim: "Re: Locking Down a Linux Box"
- In reply to: Praise: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Seth Arnold: "Re: About named port binding"
- Next in thread: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: About named port binding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]