Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by boomlinde 1759 days ago
From a practical point of view, regardless of the scope of the original question, this is the kind of scenario where you'd really want the restriction. More than a simple administrative task it's a dangerous attack vector to allow any user to launch your httpd or DNS.

That being said, check out capabilities(7) in Linux. You can grant an executable the privilege of binding to a low port when run by non-0 uid through setcap. This is a good compromise.

1 comments

this whole 'privledged ports' nonsense is left over from a time where some process on another machine running on a low port was somehow to be trusted - because the person running that process was another administrator, and you can generally trust those guys (as opposed to unwashed users).

that world didn't last very long, and I wish we could vent some of these designs that didn't pass the test of time.