<html style="direction: ltr;">
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style>
</head>
<body style="direction: ltr;"
bidimailui-detected-decoding-type="UTF-8" text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 2014-07-22 20:35, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87lhrl8ffw.fsf@goldshmidt.org" type="cite">I
am not arguing for or against using a non-standard port. Just
pointing
out that "non-standard" and "non-privileged" are two different
things.
</blockquote>
Yep, but now you are back to scanning only 1024 ports, instead of
65536, is there any gain?<br>
<br>
On a PC/SOHO setup -- where most data is "held by the user anyway"--
user & root are "closer", so you probably gain security by a
random high port. In a large network maybe not. <br>
(setups in between have some hard thinking to do, and/or test with a
honey-pot what is mostly scanned :-)<br>
<br>
You can always port foreword a high non-privileged port on a router
to 22 on the server.<br>
<br>
see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10182798/why-are-ports-below-1024-privileged/">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10182798/why-are-ports-below-1024-privileged/</a><br>
</body>
</html>