Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:36:14 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu>, Morgan Davis <mdavis@cts.com>, "'Hajimu UMEMOTO'" <ume@mahoroba.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, security@FreeBSD.org, wollman@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-print@bostonradio.org Subject: RE: Malformed from address Message-ID: <p05100e01b73f5ea0b961@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <153770000.991535023@vpn5.ece.cmu.edu> References: <000801c0ebd3$932adae0$271978d8@cts.com> <153770000.991535023@vpn5.ece.cmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:23 PM -0400 6/2/01, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: >On Saturday, June 02, 2001, Morgan Davis <mdavis@cts.com> wrote: >+----- >| > printer client must bind source port to within IPPORT_RESERVED. >| >| "Yeah, right." -- Bill Gates :-) >+--->8 > >If you want to be pedantic, the source port is supposed to be >between 729 and 739 IIRC. Which is a ridiculous restriction >that causes lpd to fall flat on its face when used with 50+ >printers and several hundred clients. I don't understand this statement, but then I will have to admit I am not an expert in network programming under Unix. In any case, we have about five print servers, which drive something like 200+ print queues, and those servers accept jobs from about 600 different hosts. I am not aware of lpd falling flat on it's fact here...in fact it seems to work reasonably well. Isn't this port range only going to be a limiting factor on the SENDING machine? In that case, the issue is not how many printers you have, but how many different users on a single machine might be printing to different remote-printers at the same time. If that is the issue, then I can believe that we (here at RPI) might just happen to avoid the problem. >(But as someone else noted, the test was in fact backwards and >*rejected* reserved ports, so it should be at minimum fixed >and at best removed or made configurable.) When you catch up with the recent email, you'll see that the check is correct. It does not reject reserved ports, obviously, as then it would have to reject jobs from other unix machines. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05100e01b73f5ea0b961>