Serial over Ethernet module selection

[mackrackit]

You should be ok if communications to the device are from within the LAN. It will be able to send data out as any other device.

I just brought the port 80 thing up as sometimes we will put a server on say port 8347 and open that up through the fire wall. Sometimes port 80 is already being used or the idea of security by obscurity...
The Connect One devices will not allow this.

[Charlie]

Dave, I have a pretty good understanding of how routers work. If you want to get to any device from the internet, it needs to be at a publicly routable static address, regardless of the port number. It can not be hidden behind a NAT segment.
When someone wants to reach that server, however, the router THEY are behind will block OUTGOING requests on ports not specifically opened. Since the vast majority of those requests are on port 80, it's almost universally open. If you put your server on another port, it may be difficult to reach from many locations, unless you create a specific application and use UPNP or something.
I suppose what you are doing is having the fixed IP source router route a specific port request to a specific internal address and port - clever idea. But if you are doing this, and no other server is hosting anything on this address, why isn't port 80 as good as any other? Or are hosting companies blocking this to prevent people hosting from their homes?
I really am just curious - most of the things I do in this space are on private networks, and I'd be looking to serve internally only from this sort of device, with no need to access it from beyond the corporate firewall.

[xapmanis]

Thank you Dave and Charlie for your commends !! I'll try to buy a couple of nano socket module and start working as soon as possible !!!


Best regards, Kostas.

[mackrackit]

Dave, I have a pretty good understanding of how routers work. If you want to get to any device from the internet, it needs to be at a publicly routable static address, regardless of the port number. It can not be hidden behind a NAT segment.

Wrong, I have several servers behind NATs on different ports on different LANs.

When someone wants to reach that server, however, the router THEY are behind will block OUTGOING requests on ports not specifically opened. Since the vast majority of those requests are on port 80, it's almost universally open. If you put your server on another port, it may be difficult to reach from many locations, unless you create a specific application and use UPNP or something.

Wrong again. If the device is on a port other than 80 for http request all you have to do is add a ":" then the port number. abc.com:1234

I suppose what you are doing is having the fixed IP source router route a specific port request to a specific internal address and port - clever idea. But if you are doing this, and no other server is hosting anything on this address, why isn't port 80 as good as any other? Or are hosting companies blocking this to prevent people hosting from their homes?

Now you are getting it! Yes, a port is a port as far a working, it is more to do with security audits. And yes, some hosting companies block 25, 80, and others.

I really am just curious - most of the things I do in this space are on private networks, and I'd be looking to serve internally only from this sort of device, with no need to access it from beyond the corporate firewall.

Then you should not have any problems. Unless you are crossing different sub nets... but that is another story... Contact your IT department if that is the case.

[Charlie]

Wrong, I have several servers behind NATs on different ports on different LANs.
Wrong again. If the device is on a port other than 80 for http request all you have to do is add a ":" then the port number. abc.com:1234
Now you are getting it! Yes, a port is a port as far a working, it is more to do with security audits. And yes, some hosting companies block 25, 80, and others.
Then you should not have any problems. Unless you are crossing different sub nets... but that is another story... Contact your IT department if that is the case.

Dave, I think we've hijacked this thread enough. However, simply saying I'm wrong, then describing a situation different in detail from what I was stating, really isn't helping anyone understand. Routing and security is complex business - we can agree on that. There are many ways to skin a cat. I'm sure yours works for you as well as mine does for me. I was just trying to understand yours and maybe learn a new method. And I work in IT, so calling them (as you've told me twice) means calling myself or one of my colleagues.

[amgen]

Dave, I think we've hijacked this thread enough

sorry,
from Linux and security classes I took, routers, switches, and other devices with various operating systems....can be set up (in configuration files) regarding security to:
block all but.....
allow all but.....
combinations of both depending on which rule is first or last....
and I would say port 80 is for web pages served, and having an odd port for other stuff (pic) would be less a security risk since when hackers scan IP's for vulnerabilities, they would try some or more of the "well known assigned ports" (generally 0 to 1000) for access and less likely to try all 65000 since that kind of scan is more detectable to security software......and when several or many devices are installed in a LAN that you want to access from outside, you would naturally use different ports....(even with IPV6 I believe)
don (2 cents)