On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Bill Sconce wrote:
> We look like
> heros. Heck, we ARE heros...
Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time.
What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
Good job, Bill!
> P.S. There was a yucky part, of c
On 6/21/2010 8:42 PM, Bill Sconce wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:05:18 -0400
> Chip Marshall wrote
>> On 21-Jun-2010, Bill Sconce sent:
>>
>>> START WITH NEVER EXPOSING SSHD ON PORT 22.
>>>
>> You don't secure your house by hiding the door, you secure it by
>> having good locks.
>>
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:50:27 -0400
Bill Sconce wrote:
> a whole stream of replies -- and most significantly,
> an answer to the last question. (I.e., "don't give up".)
I'm glad I (we) didn't. Victory!
> Thanks to everyone who responded. I'll do some more reading
> and choose a new approach
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:05:18 -0400
Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 21-Jun-2010, Bill Sconce sent:
> > START WITH NEVER EXPOSING SSHD ON PORT 22.
>
> You don't secure your house by hiding the door, you secure it by
> having good locks.
I couldn't agree more. The idea is to cut down on the scratching
Thanks Joshua,
"man interfaces" helped refresh my memory about the options besides "auto"
Greg Rundlett
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
wrote:
> "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" writes:
> >
> > I have a system with two physical network interfaces; a cat45 ethernet
> port
>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 21-Jun-2010, Bill Sconce sent:
>> START WITH NEVER EXPOSING SSHD ON PORT 22.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
>
> Personally, I think this is a flawed approach to securing a machine.
I put sshd on a non-stan
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Ted Roche wrote:
>> Apparently attackers are going after "keyboard interactive"
>> authentication, which is separate from "password authentication".
>>
>
> So, even if I have set PasswordAuthentication no in my sshd_config,
> there's still a way to ssh into the s
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 21-Jun-2010, Bill Sconce sent:
>> START WITH NEVER EXPOSING SSHD ON PORT 22.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
>
> Personally, I think this is a flawed approach to securing a machine. It
I don't think anyone he
On 21-Jun-2010, Bill Sconce sent:
> START WITH NEVER EXPOSING SSHD ON PORT 22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
Personally, I think this is a flawed approach to securing a machine. It
only serves to encorage full port scans of machines, which wastes even
more bandwidth.
S
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:04:59 -0400
Ted Roche wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> >
> > Apparently attackers are going after "keyboard interactive"
> > authentication, which is separate from "password authentication".
> >
>
> So, even if I have set PasswordAuthenti
Ted Roche writes:
> Oh, a reminder: a fellow GNHLUGer told a tale not too long ago about
> testing ssh changes: always keep an exiting connection open when
> you're making changes. This way, when you lock yourself out of making
> new connections with the changes, you can use your old connection to
On 06/21/2010 09:54 AM, Marc Nozell (m...@nozell.com) wrote:
> FYI, I've been using sshguard for a few month to drop routes to sites
> that are probing my server.
>
> None of the docs seemed to be quite right, so I wrote up some notes on
> getting it working debian/Lenny here:
> http://nozell.co
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
>
> Apparently attackers are going after "keyboard interactive"
> authentication, which is separate from "password authentication".
>
So, even if I have set PasswordAuthentication no in my sshd_config,
there's still a way to ssh into the ser
"Greg Rundlett (freephile)" writes:
>
> I have a system with two physical network interfaces; a cat45 ethernet port
> and a wireless card - otherwise known as any normal computer.
>
> I configured the wired interface (eth0) to be static by editing /etc/network/
> interfaces (see bottom) and I let
On 21-Jun-2010, Marc Nozell (m...@nozell.com) sent:
> FYI, I've been using sshguard for a few month to drop routes to
> sites that are probing my server.
On my cable modem at least, I've been seeing an huge increase in
distributed SSH bruteforcing, so sshguard isn't effective. There's
clearly a p
FYI, I've been using sshguard for a few month to drop routes to sites that
are probing my server.
None of the docs seemed to be quite right, so I wrote up some notes on
getting it working debian/Lenny here:
http://nozell.com/blog/2010/03/09/sshguard-on-debianlenny/
You'll know it is working when
http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9031
http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9034
Apparently attackers are going after "keyboard interactive"
authentication, which is separate from "password authentication". If
you are using SSH public/private keys only, make sure you have
"ChallengeResp
> Hmmm. I wonder if some cookie company somewhere decided that they
>might as well use fortune(6) to obtain their copy...
My favorite fortune(6) was for Mock Apple Pie made from Ritz Crackers,
originally printed on the back of the Ritz Cracker box.
If it is true that this fortune cookie company
On Sun, June 20, 2010 10:10 pm, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> http://live.gnome.org/NetworkManager/SystemSettings touches on this
> problem apparently by saying that I could set network-manager to ignore
> anything defined in /etc/network/interfaces. But, I don't want it
> ignored, I just wa
19 matches
Mail list logo
