Requesting a common encrypted port number for hobbit client/server 🔗 link

Just and idea, port 1984 over the years got recognized by some kind of Internet organization as default port for bb client/server communication port.

Should we (hobbit community) pursue a common port number for hobbit client/server  encrypted communication ?

I see the need but don't how to get this done.
which port number to use ? who(which entity)  to ask ?

I am using port 1999 for my testing purpose for now.


T.J. Yang

Messenger Caf� � open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline

T.J.,

I second this idea.  I think it would be a great benefit to the Hobbit community.  About 6 or 7 years ago, a guy I was working with helped develop a monitoring system for our employer at the time using BB Pro and Cisco Pix FW/Routers so that we could keep client monitoring traffic encrypted, while utilizing the internet to send info to our NOC.  It was a rather elegant solution to the clear text problem.  As a result of his work the Quest folks added the encryption feature in the Pro version shortly thereafter.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: T.J. Yang [mailto:user-8e841282cda5@xymon.invalid]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 9:41 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: [hobbit] Requesting a common encrypted port number for hobbit client/server


Just and idea, port 1984 over the years got recognized by some kind of
Internet organization as default port for bb client/server communication
port.

Should we (hobbit community) pursue a common port number for hobbit
client/server  encrypted communication ?

I see the need but don't how to get this done.
which port number to use ? who(which entity)  to ask ?

I am using port 1999 for my testing purpose for now.


T.J. Yang

Messenger Café - open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily.
Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

From: "T.J. Yang" <user-8e841282cda5@xymon.invalid>
To: <user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: [hobbit] Requesting a common encrypted port number for hobbit client/server

Have a look at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

Regards
Lars Ebeling

see below,

Should we have Henrik do the honor of requesting one ?

http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl


tj

Regards
Lars Ebeling

Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more�.then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 08:40:38AM -0500, T.J. Yang wrote:

I don't think this is necessary, and I'm not even sure such an
application will be accepted.

The current trend for protocols that operate with both plain-text
and encrypted traffic is to start with an un-encrypted connection, and
then use a "STARTTLS" command to turn on encryption. The two sides can
then negotiate if they can/will communicate.

Since this appears to be the method preferred by the Internet
authorities, that's the one I've though about implementing. That
shouldn't stop you from using stunnel, though.

It's handled by IANA, You request it through
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl


Regards,
Henrik

I thought I saw something of bb could send msg to hobbit server through https.
Now I cannot find it anywhere.

-- 
Asif Iqbal
PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:47:57 +0200

If hb encryption via stunnel is implemented then  a port for plaintext 
redirection is needed.
thus the idea of requesting  non-taken port( from iana) for hobbit encrypted 
message.

For my understanding, BB Pro can do message encryption already and looks 
like they
are using port 1984 also.

What is the impact of  mixing  bb encrypted message and hb encrypted message 
protocols on same port number ? and I don't believe Quest publish the bb 
message encryption protocol.

I think getting a port for hobbit itself is still  good in the long run.

Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:36:46AM -0500, T.J. Yang wrote:

No, you need to configure your clients to use the encrypted port.
Or do some firewall redirecting of the traffic to the encrypted service.

I have no idea how Quest implements encryption in the commercial BB
version. Most likely the Hobbit and BB encryption mechanisms will not
be compatible - I don't see this as a problem, Hobbit clients have never
been compatible with BB. The mechanism I see for Hobbit is like this:

   CLIENT                 SERVER
   --------------         ---------------------
   Connect to server
                          Accept connection
   Send "STARTTLS\n"
                          Send "OK\n"
   Perform TLS handshake  Perform TLS handshake
   (Validate server cert) (Validate client cert)
   Exchange data          Exchange data

Which is similar to how quite a few of the standard Internet protocols
implement a "TLS upgrade" of the communication.

The certificate validation is optional, but quite trivial to implement.
So this will also allow for fine-grained control over who can feed data
into Hobbit.

Regarding the request for a dedicated port number: The problem is that I
really do not believe IANA would be willing to assign a port number for
Hobbit - it would be against their stated policy of not assigning
different portnumbers for the plain-text and encrypted versions of an
application-layer protocol. Since BB already has a port number
assignment, getting a new one for Hobbit doesn't seem likely.


Henrik