| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Brian Parish wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Yes, I see that on all our servers. Not much more than an annoyance unless |
| 4 |
> you have stupidly obvious passwords, but annoying for sure. On customer |
| 5 |
> servers that don't require access from the everywhere and anywhere I just |
| 6 |
> configure hosts.allow and hosts.deny to drop traffic from all but known |
| 7 |
> addresses, but this is of course not an option for a webserver or whatever. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> There have been lots of discussions on various lists about handling these |
| 10 |
> brute force ssh scripts, with various strategies for having iptables rules |
| 11 |
> limit login attempts after three unsuccessful attempts, but I've seen as many |
| 12 |
> "it didn't work for me" posts as "do it this way" and not being a firewall |
| 13 |
> guru, I've sat on the fence so far. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Several strategies to increase security but it depends on how people |
| 16 |
access the server. For example, if noone needs ssh access except you, you |
| 17 |
could add a firewall rules that only allows access from your IP. Another |
| 18 |
option is to generate a key and setup authentication via key - you can |
| 19 |
then configure ssh to do only key authentication (this will stop the basic |
| 20 |
brute-force password attacks right away). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For people who need scp/sftp (but not full shell access) you could set |
| 23 |
their login shell to use rssh instead. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Many ways to skin a cat and all that... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives