Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443

I think Eliot meant RFC 5785 /.well-known/ locations, rather than well known ports

Yoav

> On 24 Nov 2015, at 6:37 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Eliot, I don't think a scan is needed to make a decision
> here.  Having managed several networks that would not have allowed you
> access from some random scanner, I don't think you'll get all the data
> you are looking for.  In a well managed network, the IDS/IPS should
> detect that it is a scan and block all future probes once you hit a
> small number of ports/IPs.  So you may get a small sample with
> everything else failing within an address block.  Granted, not all
> networks are managed well and you may get a good amount of data.
> 
> If this connection was expected to a few servers, then a network
> manager might just allow those only on the assigned port.
> 
> Without any hat on, I agree that a port + 443 as an alternate is a good plan.
> 
> Kathleen
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't this precisely what .well-known was meant to address?
>> 
>> fun small research project.  what percentage of well-known ports can
>> you connect to from the outside to a machine inside cisco?  hell, to
>> what percentage of well-known ports outside cisco can you reach from
>> inside?
>> 
>> well-known does not correlate well with open to access by IT security
>> departments.
>> 
>> randy
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> Acme@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme