Why won't Web Interface work with ports below 1024?

Is this seriously for real?

Please forgive my lack of credulity that RangerMSP is so poorly designed that the web interface will not work with IIS and SSL on the default port 443. This just causes all kinds of issues and head aches for no documented reason. Can someone please confirm whether this is just old outdated information or whether this is actually true?

According to the documentation:

"you must use a port number greater than 1024 in order for the Web Interface service to work."
http://www.rangermsp.com/wiki/Web_Interface

and

"select a port value other than the standard SSL port (443)"
http://www.rangermsp.com/wiki/Using_..._Web_Interface

Thanks in advance.

The Web interface with IIS DOES work with port 443, it follows all standards and that should be used, unless you have any reason to use another port. So yes, use https and port 443 freely.

The page you refer to has a first half page with two prominent statements (CAPS/red) that refer to using IIS and that the article is only relevant for customers using very old versions of the app (there are still some). You should safely ignore this article as it does not affect you.

Definitely use the Web interface with IIS, with your certificates and you can definitely use port 443.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the clarification. Please note that I provided quotes from TWO pages, the second of which is titled "Using SSL with Web Interface". Yes there is big red disclaimer, encouraging use of IIS, but even in the linked document for IIS, there is no statement anywhere clarifying the statements made regarding the requirement of using non-standard ports.

Furthermore, the document linked to titled "Microsoft IIS as the Web Server for the Web Interface", actually downplays the importance of using IIS for SSL as being "totally optional and not mandatory"???

"Using IIS as the Web Server for the RangerMSP Web Interface is totally optional and not mandatory. It is required mostly if the Web Interface should be used over SSL connections.

Web Interface still can be used without IIS back end as a Windows service. "

Then after that, there is no where in the document clarifying the requirements raised over non-standard ports in previous documents. In fact, very little is offered at all over the question of suggested ports. Nor is there any emphasis on the importance of security either. Going back to the first point in that RangerMSP appears to encourage the practice of entering ensuring that usernames and passwords are safefly is something that is "totally optional"!?

Thank you for sharing your feedback here. Indeed, in addition to the red/CAPs warning at the beginning it may be useful to spread the word and make it clearer that SSL can be used with IIS. Thanks.