Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 5
    So, sort of a poor-man's authentication, then? Does this convention have any real benefit in modern *nix-like operating systems? Commented Jul 13, 2011 at 1:10
  • 2
    @Amazed: The unix world is conservative, so the question to ask is "Does it cause any real trouble?" (and it should be answered in the full knowledge that every sever worth running has a command line argument to change the port). Commented Jul 13, 2011 at 2:47
  • 9
    @dmckee it could also be argued that such a design leads to more servers running as root, even if they have the option of running on alternate ports. Commented Jul 13, 2011 at 4:10
  • 5
    @Amazed It can still occasionally be useful today, on local networks. I don't think it leads to more servers running as root, services can bind the port then drop privileges, or use capabilities if available, or the admin can redirect a port on the firewall configuration. I don't think it would be put in if unix was designed today, but it doesn't hurt. Commented Jul 13, 2011 at 7:11
  • 7
    This nonsense should long be gone from the kernel. No port number should have any special meaning. The "reasoning" behind that design is long outdated (I'd think it was controversial even at design time). But what's worse then the idea of any special number ranges that are "trustworthy" are the implications. Webservers need to be executed as root just to serve webpages. A single exploit and the hole server is gone. And what for? For legacy design that never even slightly worked. Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 0:37