[cabf_validation] Authorized Port List

[Ben Wilson]

It's not about what CAs want.  It's about what a customer might want.
________________________________
From: Doug Beattie<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
Sent: ‎8/‎28/‎2015 11:26 AM
To: Ben Wilson<mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: Authorized Port List

Ben,

Do you think a CA needs to use all of these ports when attempting to validate a Random value in the .well-known directory on an Authorized Domain?  It seems unlikely Kerberos, sip and many others would be used for that purpose.

I suggest CAs add to the short list in Kirk’s proposal with ones they use and need to be present.  If others need to be added in the future that can be another ballot (i.e., start small and add as needed).

Doug

From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 2:11 PM
To: validation at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabf_validation] Authorized Port List

What about this list as something to review?  It’s pulled from a review of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers

22 (ssh), 25 (smtp), 80 (http), 109-110 (pop), 115 (sftp), 443 (https), 465 (smtps), 556 (rfs), 563 (nntps), 587 (smtp), 591 (filemaker), 593 (rpc-over-http), 636 (ldaps), 695 (ieee-mms-ssl), sip, 749-752 (kerberos), 898 (brocade-ssl), 901-904 (vmware), 911 (nca), 989-990 (ftps), 992 (telnets), 993 (imaps), 994 (ircs), 995 (pops), 1364 (ibm), 2083 (cpanel), 2087 (webhost), 2096 (cpanel), 5060-5061 (sip)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150828/10ef87d3/attachment-0001.html