4 ms·

> I also don't like abstract sockets at all. They're vulnerable to squatting attacks. TCP and UDP port numbers are the same. Anybody can bind any port number

> I also don't like abstract sockets at all. They're vulnerable to squatting attacks. TCP and UDP port numbers are the same. Anybody can bind any port number >= 1024, which blocks another server from binding that port.

quotemstr 7y ago
Yes. And now that Windows supports AF_UNIX sockets, nobody had an excuse for binding random ports on localhost for IPC.
- asveikau 7y ago
  Unless you want to support older Windows. I guess that EOL date for Win7 is fast approaching. OTOH it isn't really hard to simulate the same with win32 named pipes.
- jlokier 7y ago
  Windows always had named pipes, which are similar enough to AF_UNIX that you could use them instead.