| 1 |
On Jan 16, 2012 3:56 AM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:54:51 -0500 |
| 4 |
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 06:30:03AM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > This is nothing like changing the port for SSH - a port scanner can |
| 9 |
> > > figure that one out in seconds... |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > A real BOFH would set up a dummy instance of sshd on the regular |
| 12 |
> > port, as well as a real sshd instance on another port. The dummy |
| 13 |
> > instance could be set up to always fail the login attempt, and with |
| 14 |
> > special iptable rules to not clutter up your logfile. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Actually a real sysadmin[1] would run ssh standardly plus OSSEC with |
| 18 |
> active rules and dynamically block our Chinese friends |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] "real sysadmin" being defined as the quintessentially lazy dude who |
| 21 |
> is really not into causing himself pain or doing anything that would |
| 22 |
> increase support tickets in his inbox |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That depends on who are authorized to access the boxen via SSH. In my case, |
| 26 |
only the IT Division is authorized to access them via SSH, so the "real |
| 27 |
sysadmin" in me (g) decides it is much easier to shift the port rather than |
| 28 |
implementing esoteric hardening stuffs ;-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Plus, I get the benefit of ridiculing any IT guy/gal who managed to get |
| 31 |
him-/herself locked out (thanks to the auto-blacklist) B-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rgds, |
Archives