Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Vista
Joe Average User Is In Trouble
Scott Granneman, 2003-10-22

Comments Mode:
It's true, but who pays? 2003-10-22
HellCat (3 replies)
It's true, but who pays? 2003-10-22
blacklight
It's true, but who pays? 2003-10-23
CTRL-O
It's true, but who pays? 2003-10-25
Mark Rohrer <mark.e.rohrer@lmco.com>
Who is going to pay for it? 2003-10-22
Dennis Jugan
Teach a man to fish..... 2003-10-22
Dennis Jugan (1 replies)
Teach a man to fish..... 2003-10-23
HellCat
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-22
Anonymous (5 replies)
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-23
Anonymous (1 replies)
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-24
Anonymous
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-24
Anonymous
You're missing the point... 2003-10-24
Anonymous (2 replies)
No you are 2003-10-25
Anonymous (1 replies)
No you are 2003-10-31
Elvinas Piliponis
RPC obsolete? 2003-10-27
Anonymous
RPC is obsolete? Pray tell what the replacement is for negotiating a port between servers and clients.
Using fixed port numbers? Sweet for services that have low port numbers assigned, and only need to run one instance per IP. However, fixed high port numbers is one of the leading causes of network issues, simply because there's no facilities in the operating systems for pre-allocating a port, so it might be allocated randomly before the application who wants it starts. Most people don't even know that this is what's happening, and assumes it's an OS or software bug that forced them to restart or retry.
Yes, it's a bug -- the bug is to rely on pre-set high port numbers for listening services. It should NEVER be done, unless you can also GUARANTEE that the port is available beforehand.
That's where RPC comes in handy, and solves the over-allocation problems, by negotiating a port with the client.
There's nothing wrong with RPC in itself -- it's a SMART feature, that should be used more than it is. However, the *implementations* of RPC are far from perfect.




[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/193/23379#23379
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-27
Anonymous
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-28
Anonymous
Maybe ISPs should take a more active role 2003-10-23
Anonymous (1 replies)
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-23
faraonej@bellsouth.net (2 replies)
ISP roles 2003-10-24
Anonymous (2 replies)
ISP roles 2003-10-24
Gravity
ISP roles 2003-10-28
Matris (1 replies)
ISP roles 2003-11-02
z123
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-27
chris@remove.starforge.co.uk
The altruism here is inspiring... 2003-10-23
Anonymous (1 replies)
The altruism here is inspiring... 2003-10-24
Wayne Fielder
'3 steps to protect your pc' SIC 2003-10-23
Anonymous (1 replies)
'3 steps to protect your pc' SIC 2003-10-27
Anonymous
Wait, are we sure this is real? 2003-10-23
Ace-2-Grind
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-24
Damon McMahon <inst_karma@hotmail.com>
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-24
Anonymous
Simple and straightforward..... 2003-10-24
Dennis Jugan
This could of been a decent article.... 2003-10-25
Anonymous (1 replies)
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-25
Chuck M.
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-28
Home and Small Business Altruist
It's not just Joe Average 2003-10-28
Anonymous
Joe Average User Is In Trouble 2003-10-28
Chris Nehren (apeiron@comcast.net)
The problem is human nature 2003-10-29
blacklight
ISP roles and IS pro roles 2003-10-30
gshollingsworth
slowing of the internet 2003-11-03
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2007, SecurityFocus