Re: port 444 trick, or BS!?
From: Don Kelloway (dkelloway_at_commodon.com)
Date: 12/02/03
- Next message: Don Kelloway: "Re: Server Ports"
- Previous message: *Vanguard*: "Re: Email Proxy ?"
- In reply to: Jackie Chan: "port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Next in thread: Jackie Chan: "Re: port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Reply: Jackie Chan: "Re: port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:17:55 GMT
"Jackie Chan" <marketing@terago.ca> wrote in message
news:DHMyb.113356$PD3.5787224@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Hey
>
> I have a Windows XP Pro machine with mIRC. Someone asked me to put up
a
> RaidenFTP server, but open up port 444 becuase it is faster than any
other
> port. He says that when he FXP's into the server on port 123 he will
get 10
> Mbps but at port 444 he will get the full amount of bandwidth. Is
that
> possible? What vulnerability is this opening up?
>
> Thanks!
> Jack
>
The speed of communication could be controlled *if* there is some sort
of bandwidth limitation being imposed in between the two end-points in
the connection. Though I have my doubts that this is the case with this
individual's request.
-- Best regards, Don Kelloway Commodon Communications Visit http://www.commodon.com to learn about the "Threats to Your Security on the Internet".
- Next message: Don Kelloway: "Re: Server Ports"
- Previous message: *Vanguard*: "Re: Email Proxy ?"
- In reply to: Jackie Chan: "port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Next in thread: Jackie Chan: "Re: port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Reply: Jackie Chan: "Re: port 444 trick, or BS!?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|