DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44479>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44479 Summary: Unable to bind Port 0 Product: Apache httpd-1.3 Version: 1.3.33 Platform: Macintosh OS/Version: Mac OS X 10.4 Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: core AssignedTo: [email protected] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently have a bug submitted with Mozilla.Org (Bug 347934) referring to an inability to connect to Port 0 using Mozilla. I decided on my Mac (OS X 10.4.11) to use Apache (1.3.33) and configure it to bind port 0 in order to test it, and do some probing. I was unable to bind Apache to Port 0. The error message I receive is: *snip* The port number "0" is outside the appropriate range (i.e., 1..65535) *end snip* The manual says the number for the port directive is a number from 0 to 65535. The source in http_core.c (line 2100 in apache-1.3_20080224231903.tar.gz) has: *snip* if (port <= 0 || port >= 65536) { /* 65536 == 1<<16 */ *end snip* I would like to suggest "port <=0" be changed to "port < 0". To preempt the argument, "You shouldn't be using Port 0 anyways!" I will snip a bit from my Mozilla Bug: *snip After reading the source cited among others, I concede that there really SHOULD NOT be a server listening on Port 0, per IANA. (BTW, Windows is not the only OS that handles Port 0 weirdly.) SHOULD NOT in a RFC being defined as: 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there _may exist valid reasons_ in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. Please note the IANA Assigned Numbers document (which evolved from RFC 1700 and 3232) does not say "MUST NOT" is says "SHOULD NOT". Now Mozilla/Firefox/Lynx/IE/Opera/etc... are used on both public and PRIVATE networks. The instance I named my problem with was on a PRIVATE government network. I would offer the opinion, that using the "SHOULD NOT" definition, that someone on both a private and public network COULD setup a HTTP server on Port 0 or 21/22 (FTP), 25 (SMTP), etc.. if they wanted to. They SHOULD NOT, but they can. *end snip* A Web Admin SHOULD NOT, but that does not mean they SHOULD NOT be able to. As I am a first time poster to the Bugzilla Database, I will attempt to get a diff file tested and posted within the week. I am interested in anyone's opinion on the Port 0 matter. Thank you for your time. ~Warren -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
