1 |
As has already been pointed out, using DROP would not slow down a good |
2 |
scanner significantly. You could parallelize so that you can scan as |
3 |
many machines as you want, all within one timeout period. |
4 |
|
5 |
And it only takes one good coder to arm all the script kiddies with a |
6 |
good scanner. |
7 |
|
8 |
-Ed Faulkner |
9 |
|
10 |
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:57:27AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: |
11 |
> Oliver Schad wrote: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> True, but if you do happen to have an exploitable service (i.e. the brk |
14 |
> issue with the linux kernel and rsync recently), a script kiddie might grow |
15 |
> tired of waiting for scan results from your network and go elsewhere. |
16 |
> Certainly slowing down potential hackers buys time and frustration for the |
17 |
> attacker if nothing else. The assumption that all potential attackers are |
18 |
> experts is not a good one. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Tom Veldhouse |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> -- |
24 |
> gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
25 |
> |