Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:51:20 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breakin attempt Message-ID: <20111022165120.c000b368.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <85D6B8A7-9AF6-4188-BC58-F8CBF5ED9E91@cran.org.uk> References: <000001cc90c0$a0c16050$e24420f0$@org> <4EA2CE72.5030202@cran.org.uk> <20111022161242.11803f76.freebsd@edvax.de> <85D6B8A7-9AF6-4188-BC58-F8CBF5ED9E91@cran.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:37:55 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2011, at 15:12, Polytropon wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > >> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're > >> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in > >> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a different port. > > > > Is there _any_ reason why moving from port 22 to something > > different is _not_ a solution? > > If you run some sort of shell server, or where many people > need to login using ssh, you'll have a bit of a support > problem telling people to select the non-default port. No problem here, as login systems are preconfigured and come with "hardcoded" settings. No "user-serviceable" parts inside. :-) > Also, some might consider it security through obscurity, > which is often said to be a bad thing. Okay, that's a pragmatic reason I do understand. But: There are no basic _technical_ reasons NOT to move the SSH system to a nonstandard port, right? I'm aware that a portscan might reveal the "hidden" SSH port, but this solution at least terminates the break-in activity on the default port (which seems to be the main target in most cases). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111022165120.c000b368.freebsd>