1 |
It may make sense for small, limited users machines, but what about |
2 |
servers that are intentionally advertising ssh for it's users globally, |
3 |
so can't use port knocking, can't block all of korea (as some users |
4 |
definatly connect from there) and so on... |
5 |
|
6 |
Seems to me blocking large chunks of the net because they're a pain is a |
7 |
short term solution that's going to cause long term pain for the |
8 |
internet at large if it's allowed to become standard practice... |
9 |
|
10 |
Shouldn't this list focus on the general, base level security rather |
11 |
than specific work-arounds for these type of issues that don't apply to |
12 |
a lot of boxen? |
13 |
|
14 |
2c out. |
15 |
Ben |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
Dave Strydom wrote: |
21 |
> I think there is an easier way of doing this... |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Why not use the GEOIP IPTABLES patch and then just use this in your |
24 |
> firewall: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
27 |
> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp -m geoip --src-cc CN -j DROP |
28 |
> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp -m geoip --src-cc KR -j DROP |
29 |
> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp -m geoip --src-cc TW -j DROP |
30 |
> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp -m geoip --src-cc HK -j DROP |
31 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
32 |
> |
33 |
> This way you have 4 simple rules which do the work of that entire script. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> |
36 |
> On 10/10/05, *Taka John Brunkhorst* <antiwmac@×××××.com |
37 |
> <mailto:antiwmac@×××××.com>> wrote: |
38 |
> |
39 |
> nice but why do we need to block them? |
40 |
> ssh worms? or just lamers? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> -- |
43 |
> antiwmac@×××××.com <mailto:antiwmac@×××××.com> |
44 |
> Taka John Brunkhorst |
45 |
> |
46 |
> |
47 |
-- |
48 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |