4 ms·
Ok, fair point. I'd say it differently, though. Instead of defending the original point, which was bad, I'd instead say among all other controls--most importan
by danielrm26 13y ago
Ok, fair point.
I'd say it differently, though. Instead of defending the original point, which was bad, I'd instead say among all other controls--most important of which is patching, removing passwords, etc.--one control is running below 1024.
I could go for that.
Except I actually think the gain from being up high (over 60K) is greater than the gain from being below 1024. It's not about being invincible, it's about not being a target at all.
- MarkMc 13y agoFirstly, I like the tone you used to concede your original point. As to whether the port should be below 1024 or above 60000, I am undecided. I'd love to see some empirical data on this: let's say I run ssh over several days on port 22, port 762 and port 90332. How many connections do I get for each port?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jstanley 13y agoFor 90332, I suspect not many :)
- Quai 13y agoHighest port number is limited by the port field in TCP[1]; a unsigned short (2^16, 0-65535). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#TCP_segment_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#T...