[Snort-sigs] SID 524 submission
mkettler at ...189...
Thu Mar 28 11:48:04 EST 2002
I do know that really ancient versions of some DNS named's used port 0 (as
well as 53), but I think that 0 was only UDP not TCP.. it could be that he
is thinking of this feature as well.
At 11:14 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Chris Green wrote:
>David Wilburn <bug at ...270...> writes:
> > I've always been a bit unclear on this sig. Don't some versions of IRIX
> > listen on port 0 for some bizarre reason?
>Maybe but could you be confusing 0 with tcpmux on port 1?
>Chris Green <cmg at ...435...>
> "Not everyone holds these truths to be self-evident, so we've worked
> up a proof of them as Appendix A." -- Paul Prescod
>Snort-sigs mailing list
>Snort-sigs at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the Snort-sigs