Subject: Re: NFS and privileged ports
To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@shagadelic.org>
From: Stefan Schumacher <stefan@net-tex.de>
List: tech-net
Date: 11/09/2004 10:30:27
--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Also sprach Jason Thorpe (thorpej@shagadelic.org)
> Am I the only one who thinks that the privileged port requirement (that=
=20
> can be disabled on a per-export basis with -noresvport) is just a=20
> little silly in this day and age?
>=20
> I would really like to make -noresvport the default, and maybe add a=20
> -resvport option for people who are under the false impression that the=
=20
> privileged port requirement actually buys them extra security.
>=20
> Thoughts?

Will this take affect on the issue that NetBSD cannot run NFSD and
CFSD on the same machine, because mount_nfs can't bind NFS to a port
different from 2049?

--=20
Sleep my friend and you will see
that dream is my reality
They keep me locked up in this cage
can't they see it's why my brain says Rage      - METALLICA

--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBkI4zEfTEHrP7rjMRAurEAKCKaEwNwQhXJJkBL+0SLv+ExwruGACgpOt+
xv9axHiedfFmERySrvHuhew=
=Hnz0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx--