Ephemeral Port Randomization Questions?

Support
1

Should Kicksecure stick with the default that Linux defaults to?

cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range

The default range is 32768 - 60999
I’m not sure why this reasoning and is the RFC-compliant recommended range outdated?

RFC-compliant ephemeral port range (RFC 6335)

The Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private or Ephemeral Ports, from 49152-65535

Would changing the range to something Kicksecure specific increase Fingerprinting?

Should it be increased to 65535? net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 32768 65535
Increased entropy equals better protection against port prediction?
More ports equals less chance of port collisions under high loads?
Does changing it increase attack surface?

What are your thoughts on this since Kicksecure is also a consideration for server use?

2

TODO: research

Will take a while until we get to this.

Meanwhile, you could search if that has been discussed elsewhere and ask if not discussed yet. (Computer Security) Then post links to these discussions here for our review.

Should be a general question. Not mentioning Kicksecure to avoid confusion and focus on this topic only.