[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de> Wed, 25 November 2015 10:14 UTC

Message-ID: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:13:56 +0100
From: Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: acme@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/hwTG5NbL4Zt-rKDR7YLpYjqj5js>
Subject: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Precedence: list

Hi,

[apologies if this question duplicates the earlier thread "Issue: Allow 
ports other than 443"]

I was wondering whether people have considered services running on a 
port other than port 443; in particular, ports greater than 1024.

One particular use-case is that some services run on a higher port as 
they can (more easily) run as a non-root user, limited the danger if the 
service is compromised.

As I understand it, Domain Validated certificates provide an assurance 
about the DNS name of the asserted identity.  It specifically makes no 
claim who is running the service.

Therefore, there seems no reason to limit ACME to the traditionally 
secure port number.

Cheers,

Paul.

[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Roland Zink
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Martin Thomson
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Mill
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Darren J Moffat
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ángel González
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Vincent Lynch