Re: Liberating locked up ports
Re: Liberating locked up ports
- Subject: Re: Liberating locked up ports
- From: Glenn Anderson <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:20:04 +1300
At 8:41 -0800 27/1/03, Duane Murphy wrote:
This doesnt sound right, especially coming from Quinn. Maybe I'm
mistaken, but cant you use the same technique they use in Apache?
You missed the key word in "no good solution", which is "good".
There are a variety of less than good solutions.
A secure solution for CFM apps, which is less than good for other
reasons, is to just run them under Classic.
What is it going to take to get a good solution to this problem? As
it stands at the moment, a lot of developers are having to jump
through flaming hoops to implement less than good solutions to a
problem that could be fixed by Apple removing a single digit number
of lines of code from the kernel (I think it is 4 lines, 2 for TCP
and 2 for UDP, but it is a while since I looked).
Most OS X users don't need this restriction, and would be better off
without it. For those OS X users who think they need this
restriction, they would probably be much better off if they had some
way of specifying on a per port basis which users could bind to which
port (or on a per user basis which ports the user can bind to), and
not just for ports less than 1024, for all fixed port numbers. What
is it going to take to get something done about this?
Glenn.
_______________________________________________
macnetworkprog mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/macnetworkprog
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.