Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
chkconfig portreserve off

So that portreserve will not run at next boot. Can any bad things happen? I mean I think it's better to use "KISS" so that minimal applications will listen on

share|improve this question

According to the discussion that led to portreserve, you probably can do without if you don't use cupsd and don't experience random port binding failures on boot due to a misbehaving portmap. (This implies that you most certainly can do without if you can do without portmap.)

I don't quite understand your reasoning with binding to address, as it's about port numbers as far as I understood.

In the end, portreserve doesn't add that much bloat to the system, while it gains you some predictability on boot-up

share|improve this answer
from my understanding, if a program listens on then that means that if there is no firewall, then the program could be reached from "outside" the pc. – LanceBaynes Dec 9 '11 at 20:27

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.