full-disclosure - Re: Any update on SSH brute force attempts?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: barrie at reboot-robot.net (Barrie Dempster)
Subject: Re: Any update on SSH brute force attempts?

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 06:41 -0500, Ron DuFresne wrote:
> Why not just disallow root logins directly, and force someone with a valid
> user account to su after getting a shell?  It was my impression that was
> more standard, and if one has to allow remote root directly, at least
> restrict it to specific systems and users.  All the places I have worked
> for forced the su after shell to root..

I'm in agreement with this, as well as combining this with use of sudo
for common functions requiring root privs (such as using tools requiring
raw socks support for instance) meaning you rarely have to become root
and the root account becomes slightly more difficult to compromise.

-- 
Barrie Dempster (zeedo) - Fortiter et Strenue

  http://www.bsrf.org.uk

[ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver www.keyserver.net 0x96025FD0 ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20041018/adf686bf/attachment.bin