| 1 |
Hello Kirk, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Wednesday, October 5, 2005, 12:30:16 AM, you wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
KH> boger said the following: |
| 6 |
>> Hello Kirk, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I'll appreciate it ;) |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Goggling gives a lot of links to libpcap based port knockers, |
| 11 |
>> but I dislike idea always running in promiscuous mode. Also "magic |
| 12 |
>> packet" is a sort of overkill for me, because I need access from |
| 13 |
>> random locations with different OS'es preferably without any |
| 14 |
>> additional tools. |
| 15 |
>> If computer is untrusted, after logon I can change knock |
| 16 |
>> sequence without leaving any keys behind. Even if password gets |
| 17 |
>> compromised is not so dangerous in this scenario. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> By iptables based I mean using ulog or ipq to forward packets |
| 20 |
>> to knock daemon, thus its undetectable from outside and can be very |
| 21 |
>> fast. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> About a year ago I tested 5 or 6 port knockers but I didn't find any |
| 24 |
>> suitable for me. Some had terrible cpu usage on my machine, |
| 25 |
>> some not enough flexible configuration. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
KH> It would appear that I was mistaken in thinking that the two I have used |
| 30 |
KH> were iptables based. Both are dependent upon libpcap. I was briefly |
| 31 |
KH> confused based on the way they have been integrated into the iptables |
| 32 |
KH> firewall. For what it is worth, my experiences with libpcap port |
| 33 |
KH> knockers has been very favorable. Sorry if that was a bit of a goose chase. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks to Tobias Allen, He offered suitable decision ;) |
| 36 |
It's in '[gentoo-security] Port knocking' thread. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Also I reported this method to http://www.portknocking.org. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
boger mailto:boger@×××.ru |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives