On 1/8/22 12:12 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
On 08/01/2022 17:22, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 1/8/22 8:57 AM, John Fawcett wrote:
yes, blocking on the first wrong password sounds like overkill. But
it does depend on user base. For a small mail server with few known
users it could be workable.
It may be overkill for your network, but it's not overkill for mine.
But even on small servers I'd recommend blocking for a small time
(like up to an hour) after a small number of failures (example 3).
Then if this pattern repeats (for example 3 times) within a longer
period (for example up to a day), blocking for a longer period
(example 1 week) using the recidive jail.
My mail server is a small one with about 135 users, a corporate
network. NONE of them actually type their password when they're
checking their mail. They type it exactly once when they set up the
account in their mail client(s), like everyone else in the world for
the past decade or more.
Mileage will vary depending on user base and number of support
requests generated.
The point about fail2ban is that it slows down attackers stopping
infinite and fast repeating attacks from the same ip. That should be
in combination with a good password policy which reduces the
probability of any single attack guessing the password. It doesn't
necessarily have to zero out attacks. As Dave has experimented, to
bypass fail2ban all the attacker has to do is use a different ip.
10-15K blocks in place at any time seem very high compared to the few
attacks I see.
Sigh.
I don't "experiment" with production networks. I set up a banning
policy that works for the attack patterns that I see in my logs, and
that work with my user base. As I explained to the other guy who
decided that how I run my network is wrong, I'm not new at this.
Any attack mitigation strategy has to begin with observation and
rational thought. Network security is no place for guesswork or
assumptions.
I'd hazard a guess that the restrictive fail2ban policy is causing
the attacker(s) to try immediately from a new ip and isn't generating
a great deal more security than a slightly less restrictive policy
which lures the attacker into trying a few times more from the same
ip with longer intervals between the attempts.
I wasn't asking for a critique of my configuration; I explained my
approach to a new user who came here looking for help.
Which is the last time I'll do THAT on this list, by the way.
But since you brought it up, the attack pattern that I see most
frequently is a single IP address trying different, obviously
algorithmically-generated usernames at long intervals, many seconds to
many hours, and in some cases a day or more. This started around 2014
or so, and has persisted and grown. The approach that you describe
above seems to make sense on the surface, but looking at actual logs
doesn't support the idea.
The "attackers" in this case are almost exclusively little programs
thrown together by kids and run from zombie Windows boxes on clueless
users' home networks organized as botnets. This pattern is visible
when the same sequences of generated usernames start appearing from
different IP addresses within hours of each other.
Some of the more advanced stuff has the adaptive behaviors that you
describe, but not many. These script k1ddiez are trolling for
low-hanging fruit to get bank account info etc out of peoples' mail
accounts. These are almost never focused attacks from one motivated,
knowledgeable person trying hard to get into one user's mail.
So, hazard all the guesses you like, I will continue to develop
banning strategies for my servers which fit the attacks that I observe
through direct analysis of my logs.
Now, please don't misunderstand, I actually do appreciate the
thought and intention behind your unsolicited advice. But, for future
reference, don't assume that someone doesn't know what they're doing
just because their approach differs from either your approach for your
own network, or your guesses about theirs.
-Dave, pre-coffee
Dave
no one is telling you how to run your server or offering you unsolicited
advice but on a public mailing list there can be multiple points of view
about a topic and there may be not be a single right way to do
something. There is no reason then to take this as someone telling you
that how you run your network is wrong or to avoid participating in future.
Well thanks for that, but perhaps you should re-read what you sent
that prompted my (admittedly rather sour) reply.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
