From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 22:11:16 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC0016A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:11:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dexter.starfire.mn.org (starfire.skypoint.net [66.93.17.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCFB43D5A for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:11:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from john@dexter.starfire.mn.org) Received: (from john@localhost) by dexter.starfire.mn.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id j0OMAtp06346; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:10:55 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from john) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:10:55 -0600 From: John To: Colin Alston Message-ID: <20050124161055.B6072@starfire.mn.org> References: <20050124210109.GA14171@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <12318458361.20050124221023@hexren.net> <41F56590.1070303@karnaugh.za.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <41F56590.1070303@karnaugh.za.net>; from karnaugh@karnaugh.za.net on Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:16:00PM +0200 cc: Kosta Kilim cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: Hexren Subject: Re: sshd port number ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:11:16 -0000 On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:16:00PM +0200, Colin Alston wrote: > Hexren wrote: > > >> How does that make sshd less secure if its on a port above > >> 1024 ? > >If ssh ever goes down, a user could start his own compromised > >version of ssh and do some nasty stuff. The same user could not do > >that if the connecting side would expect sshd to be on a privileged > >port because the system ensures that only procs running with superuser > >privileges can bind to a privileged port. > > > > > And to note, ports <1024 are what we reffer to as "privileged ports", ie > - only root, or processes running as root, can open/close/mess them. OK, but this only applies to secury and well-managed systems. Early versions of Windows did nothing to restrict the use of ports below 1024, and any hacker out there with a Linux or FreeBSD box can start any service he likes to listen on a port below 1024, or have an application run to open a connection on a port below 1024. I'm sure the writer was aware of this - I just want to make sure that newcomers and lurkers don't put too much confidence in the port number of a connection. -- John Lind john@starfire.MN.ORG