Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers/Archive 3

CIRCL
I sent this email to CIRCL:

"To whom it may concern,

I am mailing to you to make an informal complaint. It looks like Chris Studer (chrisr3d on GitHub) has committed a file named 'ports' to a 'doc' directory under CIRCL's 'potiron' repository. [2]

On further inspection, the source of this file seems to have been derived from English Wikipedia article 'List of TCP and UDP port numbers', which I'm a frequent contributor (and copyright holder) to. Furthermore, the attribution to English Wikipedia contributors and license (CC BY-SA 3.0 & GFDL-any) is missing from the repository.

It's nice that you're reusing works from Wikipedia, which is freely licensed for reuse. However, it comes with some conditions, e.g. requirement of attribution.

See Wikipedia:Copyrights [3] and Wikipedia:DERIVATIVE [4]. In particular, I informally request you to:

1. Add the CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL (any version) license text to the repository (or link to a copy of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, as appropriate), and clearly attribute 'Wikipedia contributors' as the source of the file (preferably with a date and revision, if known); or 2. Remove the doc/ports file from the repository. (Imo, a commit is fine without a rewrite of git history.)

I'm hoping to have this concern resolved with this informal email without further action from me. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks in advance.

[1]: https://github.com/CIRCL/potiron/blob/master/doc/ports [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DERIVATIVE"

84.250.17.211 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Partial progress made, an URL and license are mentioned now. Full compliance TBD, I need to clarify the conditions (once I find time). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiDevi
I sent the following email to WikiDevi's Internet hosting service provider ([mailto:abuse@inceronetwork.com abuse@inceronetwork.com]):

"Hello.

I've tried sending the following abuse complaint to one of your customers hosting a site 'wikidevi.com' at IP-address 192.211.52.72 (hosted on Incero's network), but their MediaWiki installation's Special:Contact form is broken and returns an empty page, effectively making the site operator unreachable. The message was:

To whom it may concern,

WikiDevi's article 'List of TCP and UDP port numbers' seems to have been substantially duplicated from English Wikipedia's article of the same name by User:DarkShadow.

Informally, I'd like to complain Wikipedia's choice of license (CC BY-SA   3.0 + GFDDL-any) requires attribution, which has not been done yet (?) at WikiDevi to comply with the copyright license. I am a frequent contributor (and copyright holder) to this article at English Wikipedia, and it takes a lot of my personal time to contribute to.

I support your cause to reuse freely licensed works from Wikipedia, but would like to remind you of the legal conditions while doing so. I'm   hoping you to take the appropriate action to resolve this concern by    attributing 'Wikipedia contributors' as the authors and include a link to the page history. See Wikipedia:Copyrights at English Wikipedia.

Thank you.

$ host wikidevi.com wikidevi.com has address 192.211.52.72 wikidevi.com mail is handled by 10 mx.hover.com.cust.hostedemail.com. $ host 192.211.52.72 72.52.211.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer 192-211-52-72-customer-incero.com."

84.250.17.211 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * mailto:abuse@wikidevi.com bounced, by the way. Clueless of Internet standards. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

simple-portscanner
Sent to the author via email:

"Hi Tim.

Your project, simple-portscanner [1], includes an unauthorized substantial copy [2] of English Wikipedia's 'List of TCP and UDP port numbers' article (or more precisely, the description data of it with all the 'when?' maintenance tags, etc.) [3].

I am a long-time contributor (and one of the many copyright holders) to the beforementioned Wikipedia article. I'm glad you've found use for it, but I have concerns about your reuse.

Although works from Wikipedia are freely reusable, it comes with conditions. As far as I see it, the repository is missing the license text of CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL-any (Wikipedia's choice of copyright license). It is also missing attribution for 'Wikipedia contributors', as required by the license.

Would you please follow Wikipedia:Copyrights [4] and Wikipedia:DERIVATIVE [5] with your reuse? In particular, adding the CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL-any license texts to the repository and attributing 'Wikipedia contributors' with page history would be a good start.

Side note: In the worst case scenario, I'm not sure if you could ever legitimately follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 license anymore due to automatic termination clause (section 7) on violation. Reinstating rights to that license are not automatic in BY-SA 3.0, unlike in BY-SA 4.0 (notification from the copyright holder). In that scenario, maybe your only option might be removing or replacing portlist.txt from the repository?

[1]: https://github.com/timgrossmann/simple-portscanner [2]: https://github.com/timgrossmann/simple-portscanner/blob/master/assets/portlist.txt [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DERIVATIVE"

84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ since 24 January 2018. The author thanked me for the contact and opted to delete the repository. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Full IP Info (fullip.info)
Sources to Wikipedia at https://fullip.info/ip/ports/, but forgets to provide a copy of the license. Contacting the operator TBD. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Warranty disclaimers (General disclaimer) are also missing. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Integrasi Konfigurasi Implementasi
Seems to be resolved? Was at http://www.konfigurasi.net/list_of_tcp_and_udp_port_numbers/. Removed with Special:Diff/822126342. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

httpLAB
No attribution, no license at https://httplab.it/PortDef. Contacting the operator TBD. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ZedLan
2012–2013 something. Need to check which way the copyvios go. http://www.zedlan.com/db-services.txt 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mumble
Please add the standard port of Mumble: 64738 Mumble is a free and open source VOIP software for gamers with encryption and positional audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6B:E01:4C00:456A:88AA:C5BE:7D70 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about Mumble (software). Citation needed. I'm afraid I cannot find any reliable sources for this to include it, only user-generated sources. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Port 8080 (and others)
I noticed that for port 8080 (HTTP alt.) there are two alternatives listed (Apache Tomcat and Atlassian Software). These are examples of HTTP servers defaulting to that port and do IMHO not need to be named here, especially considering the multitude of webservers serving from there. Same goes for Port 8000, where the Django development server listens by default (according to the author). 178.115.129.50 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I can agree with you, although I'm feeling neutral on this concern. The primary problem is reliable sourcing. The software could still be mentioned seperately, if notable (e.g. WP:CSC). I've kept thinking anything not notable or what can't be reliably sourced should be kept under the generic description of "HTTP". 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would the below proposal (for port 8080) be a better solution? 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Table proposal
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2003:54fa:d2::1 (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2017‎ (UTC)


 * The table in the article is confusing, and does need to be redesigned. Your cautionary disclaimer notwithstanding, we can't talk about a better design without understanding the data. This single example doesn't address the "reserved port" cases and other row variations. —Ringbang (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I kept the example to the very minimum, as there is an extended example at Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers/Archive 2. The table at the archived talk page should address the "reserved port" use case and other variations. Sorry this wasn't very clear from the beginning, as this table only meant to address this specific table row (HTTP) instead. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The table in the article is a mess with too many different and unexplained values in the TCP and UDP columns.40.134.106.218 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cleanup added and ports 1–50 cleaned up. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Table s also added to well-known ports to increase readability. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Port 465: Submission, not SMTPS
RFC 8314 confuses me. May need to check the description of port 465 in the list. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

sgricci's Python Port Scanner backwards copyvio
Suspicion of backwards copyvio:. Obvious by [dead link], etc. License and disclaimers are missing. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of SCTP and DCCP et al
Information pertaining to the protocols SCTP and DCCP should be removed, with the possible exception of the note in the lead. The expressed purpose of this page is to describe TCP and UDP port numbers and their associated applications. SCTP and DCCP are not TCP and UDP; the fact that they also use port numbers and the fact that those numbers "usually" agree with TCP and UDP are irrelevant to the subject. SCTP and DCCP port numbers should be removed to their own tables, preferably on each protocol's respective wikipage. Failing that, SCTP and DCCP should be broken off into their own columns and all the instances of "Yes, and SCTP[10]" amended accordingly.

A couple of other minor unrelated points: IMHO, being officially designated by IANA is all a protocol needs to be considered important. Consequently, no rows marked Official should have the importance? tag (see 50-58 in particular). I don't think the "excessive reliance on primary sources" issue is appropriate here. When you have international organizations that decide on X, and then publish white papers, RFCs, and registries in print and online that specify in unambiguous, clear-cut terms what exactly X is, of course those documents are always going to be the main source of information. 98.110.113.126 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't mind removing SCTP and DCCP. It happened to be there years ago when I started editing this article (Special:Permalink/736320251). As for importance, WP:CSC? I've tagged it when there's no article, and I couldn't add reliable sources to verify notability beyond mere existence. The list here is not meant to be exhaustive; being officially designated by IANA is not enough alone to establish encyclopedic notability without a reliable reference (and/or a Wikipedia article) to go along with it. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A similar issue arises for port 5 - where the cited articles are talking about NCP (pre-dating TCP/IP and the Internet as we know it) where socket 5 was used for RJE, but was not a TCP or UDP port. While interesting historically, they do not justify the allocation of TCP and UDP port 5 to the RJE protocol (which was properly allocated ports 71-74 under its formalised name). However John Postel DID reserve TCP and UDP port 5 for rje, and that is shown in the offical IANA list. No further verification is needed (or possible) as we can't ask John to confirm that they are one and the same, and at that early stage John was the arbiter and allocater of special numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.8.100 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well-known ports converted to table legend format; possible inaccuracies
Special:Diff/850900802 should be reviewed for accuracy. At quick glance I found an error with port 102 (fixed with Special:Diff/851103347). 2001:2003:F418:6500:B903:256B:62DA:FDB5 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic port range for CMC has been updated by RFC 6402 and mentions port 5318
This updates RFC 5273 about the dynamic port range usage section. 138.94.57.177 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅/: Special:Diff/854893942. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for Apache Tomcat on port 8080
I don't know how to handle this, maybe someone can help me. The default setting when you install Apache Tomcat uses port 8080. It has been that way for years, at least since before 2008 (That is a random year I remember having looked at the default). The only way I know to verify this is to look in the configuration file in the software package, I'm not sure if that is acceptable as a citation? Samuel (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You can use this citation: Peaceray (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ with small changes: Special:Diff/866270814. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet Archive's dWeb mirror (GUN port 8765) – notability dispute
Can someone note me some reliable sources pointing to GUN protocol (port 8765) being notable for inclusion? Internet Archive's trivial mention of it and a reference pointing to a commit of port change – both WP:UGC / self-published, primary sources – seemingly makes an WP:OR interpretation of its port number and doesn't really seem to establish notability. Previously it also said Yes for TCP and made no statement for UDP, but wasn't referenced as such (again, WP:OR). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * : No consensus, reverted again failing WP:BRD / WP:N / WP:RS. (Special:Diff/874959916) 84.250.17.211 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 84.250.17.211 perhaps you aren't familiar with the Non-Profit library, Internet Archive[] - you should read up on their work. Your recurring edit war and vandalism puts Open Access and Knowledge at risk in countries which are prone to censorship. Port 8765 is being standardized for local networks to discover and relay internet content in areas where the internet may be tampered/firewalled/blocked. Obscuring this port could cause conflicts for journalists, librarians, refugees, operators, etc. trying to get around dictatorships and internet censorship, and could one day even prevent individuals in countries from accessing censorship resistant copies of Wikipedia itself. Please stop self-voting this out of the listing. --71.202.228.180 (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Google Books web search results: "dApps" 8765: 0 (1 irrelevant) "GUN" "port 8765": 1 "GUN relay peer": 0 "GUN" protocol + "Internet Archive": 0 (5 irrelevant)  I disagree with your revert and apparently hostile attitude. Please focus on the edits, not the editor. Consensus can change; in this case there was no consensus, and I've gone through the steps of WP:BRD to bring this into discussion on this very talk page without response addressing WP:BURDEN in a long time. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's few more: "dWeb" 8765: 0 (2 irrelevant) "dWeb" "GUN": 0 (75 irrelevant) "dWeb" decentralized: 1 (+ 1 irrelevant)  It seems "dWeb" exists (according to one reliable source), but I can't say so about GUN specifically. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "dWeb" "Internet Archive": 0 (1 irrelevant) 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had also notified this dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force in November 2018, with no follow up on discussion. I don't see importance of this protocol (GUN). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For a reference to this discussion, here's what I believe to be your edits 71.202.228.180: The behavioral patterns here suggest the different IP-addresses are all the same contributor, assumably you. Only your latest IP-address routes to Comcast, first four routing to AT&T. (Please be cautious of WP:IPSOCK; consider registering an account.)  I also find the behavior (edit warring) in those edits and summaries troubling, but I appreciate our attempts of effort to build consensus on this talk page. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally, please understand I'm not concerned about the notability of Internet Archive; I'm concerned about the notability of the GUN protocol in itself, yet so far haven't seen much references supporting the statements made by these edits mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.17.211 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And re: Git commit changing default GUN port: As WP:PRIMARY says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. We're at a stalemate here with these back-and-forth reverts. I'll just quote User:TransporterMan in the side box I've added here. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Port 8765 is being standardized Sometimes, it may just be WP:TOOSOON; consider above for the number of reliable sources available. Obscuring this port ... I'd like to affirm making what Wikipedia is not: It's not an indiscriminatory collection of information or a directory for such (see WP:CSC). I'd like to not turn this list article into an indiscriminatory list, hence your contributions of GUN protocol have been previously reverted by me. You may be wrong, you may be right: In good faith, I'll not revert you again until we've found consensus. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: The problem with this is that it's such an obscure topic I'm not sure there are likely to be any reliable sources about it other than the code itself. Clearly there is a thing called GUN, which uses port 8765, and though it looks like it's used in some way by the Internet Archive, the what-for bit unfortunately seems to be OR. Still, we could leave in the bit about it being the default port, and maybe also that it's used by the Internet Archive. I don't think notability guidelines are that important for something which is literally a list of all registered ports. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation for Angular default port
Is https://angular.io/cli/serve sufficient to establish that 4200 is used by Angular? OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 12:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Cockpit: TCP 9090
Is this worth mentioning? At least it comes preinstalled on CentOS 8. But I cannot find a WP page for Cockpit itself, so ... I guess it does not hurt to ask first. ZypA13510 (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

542 - Commerce
This links to the article on literal commerce, what is the port used for? What are the "Commerce Applications"? Are e-commerce websites hosted on this port? This is too ambiguous. --93.105.178.74 (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently from the IANA https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?&page=10
 * Registered by Randy Epstein of hostleasing.net Wqwt (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)