Author Topic: Why 9 listening ports  (Read 2401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CitizenOfTheWorld

  • Guest
Why 9 listening ports
« on: January 07, 2011, 04:38:31 PM »
Why does Avast v5.1.864 (avastsvc.exe) require 9 TCP listening ports? and why does the same service intermittently TCP out with upwards of 10 connections to various sites?

TIA!

Offline lukor

  • Administrator
  • Super Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 1884
    • AVAST Software
Re: Why 9 listening ports
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2011, 04:57:32 PM »
1 for webshield
2 for pop3
3 for smtp
4 for imap
5 for nntp
6 for pop3+ssl
7 for smtp+ssl
8 for imap+ssl
9 for nntp+ssl

and the connections? Well, hmm, if you browse, you browse via webshield, and webshield have to connect to download the payload.

The truth is the same service would propably be possible to implement on fewer ports and implement some other kind of detection what type of connection it is - web or mail etc., but it would only add more difficulties for us programmers and no benefits for you as a user.

sded

  • Guest
Re: Why 9 listening ports
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2011, 05:01:50 PM »
The 9 listening ports are the proxy ports (redirected so avast! can scan them) for web, news, mail that might be invoked by your clients.  Mine are attached-without the "12" they are http, nntp, smtp, pop3, imap ports.  There are also internal and external connections made through the proxy when your clients do invoke one of these ports, and they are generally the transients you see.

25 smtp mail
80 http web
110 pop3 mail
119 nntp news
143 imap mail
465 smtp ssl
563 nntp ssl
993 imap ssl
995 pop3 ssl

you might also see

587 smtp tls and possibly others based on your usage.  And the programming.  :)



« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 05:11:41 PM by sded »

CitizenOfTheWorld

  • Guest
Re: Why 9 listening ports
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 02:25:04 AM »
Thanks for the info.  I guess those common ports should have leapt off the screen and left the 12's behind, but I couldn't see the trees for the forest. ;-)

It seems that I'm always concerned with efficiency (resources).

Thanks again.