I definately agree, banners that jump out and say 'look at me, Im easily exploitable' aren't a good thing. Changing them definately won't fix any exploits at all, but I think obscuring them lowers your chances of being noticed slightly. With all the script kiddies and so called 'crackers/hackers' out there, I'll take every 10th of a percent of lowered risk I can get. As for telnet, people still use unencrypted shell logins? Thats just slightly disturbing.
Sincerely, John A. Yonn On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd go with the idea, Security through obscurity, Isn't such a bad idea, I mean drop >down all around the corner what exactly security is, the on going effort to keep away >the *HARMFULS*, If there were no harmful elements, there wouldnt be much of the >security buzz. > So if your telnet banner says OpenBSD and kills away chances for *many* skiddiez to >try out their linux exploit attempts, or if your telnet banner says microsoft telnet >server and keeps away the skiddiez trying their linux exploit and rather they try >some other win* vulnerability. Then I dont mind keeping away less-skilled hax0rs plus >worms. And letting only skilled ones to take a shot. > I support the idea. > > Regards, > --------- > Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka > > Chief Technology Officer > Gem Internet Services (Pvt) Ltd. > web: www.gem.net.pk > > Vice President > Pakistan Computer Emergency Responce Team (PakCERT) > web: www.pakcert.org > > Chief Security Analyst > Applied Technology Research Center (ATRC) > web: www.atrc.net.pk > > > --- "Meritt James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<SNIPP>> > > _____________________________________________________________ > --------------------------- > [ATTITUDEX.COM] > http://www.attitudex.com/ > --------------------------- > > _____________________________________________________________ > Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with [EMAIL PROTECTED] by >Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag > --
