%% You should probably cite rfc9109 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-ntp-port-randomization-04, number = {draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-04}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization/04/}, author = {Fernando Gont and Guillermo Gont and Miroslav Lichvar}, title = {{Port Randomization in the Network Time Protocol Version 4}}, pagetotal = 10, year = , month = , day = , abstract = {The Network Time Protocol can operate in several modes. Some of these modes are based on the receipt of unsolicited packets, and therefore require the use of a service/well-known port as the local port number. However, in the case of NTP modes where the use of a service/well-known port is not required, employing such well-known/ service port unnecessarily increases the ability of attackers to perform blind/off-path attacks. This document formally updates RFC5905, recommending the use of port randomization for those modes where use of the NTP service port is not required.}, }