Cool. So blocking it would be a thing most companies do.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #110,335 by Meerkat 7/18/03 11:08:45 AM Reply	Cool. So blocking it would be a thing most companies do. So putting your whole support website on 8080, when you're a company that writes software for use by other companies... ... could well be seen as a spectacularly dumbass thing to do. (That's a technical term, I think). /me wonders if he'll be allowed to stay home from work on the pretence he's 'viewing the software's support site' :) John. Busy lad.
Post #110,337 by deSitter 7/18/03 11:27:22 AM Reply	Use a wacko port Make one up > 1024. -drl
Post #110,555 by pwhysall 7/20/03 12:02:14 PM Reply	No. Quoting from [link\|http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers\|The IANA port numbers list]: The port numbers are divided into three ranges: the Well Known Ports, the Registered Ports, and the Dynamic and/or Private Ports. The Well Known Ports are those from 0 through 1023. The Registered Ports are those from 1024 through 49151 The Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from 49152 through 65535 So, best practice would be to select a port with a number >49151. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #110,559 by deSitter 7/20/03 12:31:11 PM Reply	OK that works -drl

Would most corporate firewalls block port 8080? - (Meerkat) - (14) - July 18, 2003, 10:38:21 AM EDT

8080 is the Web-Caching (Proxy) port - (folkert) - (4) - July 18, 2003, 10:51:52 AM EDT

Cool. So blocking it would be a thing most companies do. - (Meerkat) - (3) - July 18, 2003, 11:08:45 AM EDT

Use a wacko port - (deSitter) - (2) - July 18, 2003, 11:27:22 AM EDT

No. - (pwhysall) - (1) - July 20, 2003, 12:02:14 PM EDT

OK that works -NT - (deSitter) - July 20, 2003, 12:31:11 PM EDT

I wouldn't have thought so. - (static) - (7) - July 19, 2003, 08:29:13 AM EDT

The official response was (more or less)... - (Meerkat) - (6) - July 21, 2003, 12:38:15 AM EDT

Re: The official response was (more or less)... - (deSitter) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 12:52:15 AM EDT

I could pursue it through official channels, - (Meerkat) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 01:10:26 AM EDT

It's a right wally-woo world, mate -NT - (deSitter) - July 21, 2003, 01:15:32 AM EDT

"Ours is not to reason why..." - (static) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:24 AM EDT

Either that, or too much paperwork :) -NT - (Meerkat) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 07:42:37 AM EDT

I imagine that would qualify as "too hard". :-) -NT - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:59:05 PM EDT

FWFW - (kmself) - July 20, 2003, 04:36:56 AM EDT

Sex. Always sex.
39 ms