Possible System Compromise

[Daniel Roesen]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:00:29PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
> Er, no. The name server binds to port 53 before it gives up its super
> user privileges and run as some other UID. How else could the name
> server work if it didn't listen on port 53? And to do that named has
> to explicitly bind() to that port number.

This is right for the TCP _listening_ socket of the server side. We
were talking about outgoing TCP queries by the resolver side of BIND.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
entire systems GmbH         | droesen at entire-systems.com
Internet Services           | Phone: +49 2624 9550-55 
Ferbachstrasse 12           | Fax:   +49 2624 9550-20
D-56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen   | http://www.entire-systems.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------