I just took a look at availability of FreeBSD Live ports - not mainstream, you
say, although I think there are inherent advantages to running live systems (in
part implied in why TAILS opts to be so by definition - my own pref is to
exceed this and run the live boot image without ever installing
Wanderingnet:
> I have considered it, as I explored various distros, most buggy and
> by no means secured out-of-the-box, in my view. But I have had such a
> nightmare experience working to any degree of satisfaction with
> Linux, I am reluctant to work on anything more stripped down. Alpine
> Linu
I have considered it, as I explored various distros, most buggy and by no means
secured out-of-the-box, in my view. But I have had such a nightmare experience
working to any degree of satisfaction with Linux, I am reluctant to work on
anything more stripped down. Alpine Linux was another option
> /etc/protocols
No, that affects userland libraries, largely unrelated
to the kernel. If some simple tool like netcat is kenel
blocked from binding < 1024 as uid 0, then your Linux
distro of the month has included some settings or security
architecture / patch beyond kernel.org, or something in
a
The IANA assignments/standard protocols per port are assigned in /etc/protocols
- though no doubt you know that. Does changing the default assignments here
help?
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On March 11, 2018 1:23 PM, Udo van den Heuve
I did it this way:
https://lorenzo.mile.si/2017/02/running-obfs4-tor-bridge-on-port-80-443/
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Forward with socat
On March 11, 2018 8:49:26 AM UTC, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On a new x86_64 firewall I notice that a freshly built obfs4proxy does
>not want to bind to a port below 1024 and becomes defunct.
>A port > 1024 works OK.
>How do I make things work for ports below 1024?
>(
On 11-03-18 14:16, kact...@gnu.org wrote:
>
> [2018-03-11 09:49] Udo van den Heuvel
>> On a new x86_64 firewall I notice that a freshly built obfs4proxy does
>> not want to bind to a port below 1024 and becomes defunct.
>> A port > 1024 works OK.
>> How do I make things work for ports below 1024?
[2018-03-11 09:49] Udo van den Heuvel
> Hello,
>
> On a new x86_64 firewall I notice that a freshly built obfs4proxy does
> not want to bind to a port below 1024 and becomes defunct.
> A port > 1024 works OK.
> How do I make things work for ports below 1024?
Wild guess. You are aware, that port
Hello,
On a new x86_64 firewall I notice that a freshly built obfs4proxy does
not want to bind to a port below 1024 and becomes defunct.
A port > 1024 works OK.
How do I make things work for ports below 1024?
(this works OK on the 32-bit old firewall)
Kind regards,
Udo
--
tor-talk mailing list -
10 matches
Mail list logo
