[Tfug] [WAs digest] Innocuous/ubiquitous service(s)?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Shanna,

On 4/10/2013 10:46 PM, shanna leonard wrote:
>
> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013
> 12:51:05 -0700 From: Zack Williams <zdwzdw at gmail.com> To: Tucson Free
> Unix Group <tfug at tfug.org> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Innocuous/ubiquitous
> service(s)? Message-ID:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> - "unsurprising" if run on a "non-standard" port (e.g., running
>>> HTTPd on port 3422 would raises eyebrows)
>>>
>> alt-port HTTP is pretty common.
>
> How about alt-port http over ssl/tls (https) ?
> common, easy to differentiate (by cert ?)

I understand your point.  But, you (client) would hardly ever *notice*
that sort of difference/differentiation.

The problem with HTTPd is it expects *content* created/selected by
the hosting entity.  I.e., if you deployed apache OotB AND DID NOTHING
ELSE, there would be scads of sites serving up:
    "It Worked! The Apache Web Server is installed on this Web Site!

    "If you can see this page, then the people who own this
    domain have just installed the Apache Web server software
    successfully. They now have to add content to this directory
    and replace this placeholder page, or else point the server
    at their real content.
etc.

Of course, the reason you *don't* see scads of these is because the
folks deploying apache *want* to serve up their own content (and not
some pre-canned pages).  I.e., *they* ensure their (IP,port) yields
a service differentiated from other folks'.

The problem with HTTPd is that it doesn't *create* or *relay*
content so *can't* differentiate itself from other instances.
(I guess one could permute something like "Lorem ipsum dolor sit
amet, consectetur adipisicing..." but that's hardly any better than
just generating random sequences of *digits*  :< )

By contrast, something like NTP "generates" its own "content"
(i.e., the content isn't *expected* to differ conceptually from
one site to another).

But, NTP really wants to sit on a well-known port... far moreso
than a web server!

<frown>

I have a couple of ideas from colleagues that I am exploring that
might give me what I want -- albeit a bit of a kludge...  :-/
I have some legal concerns over one of the approaches suggested
so I'll have to research that before getting too committed.