full-disclosure - OpenSSH is a good choice?

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]

Message-ID: <9b13f6c104122211026ef981f2@mail.gmail.com>
From: infsec at gmail.com (Willem Koenings)
Subject: OpenSSH is a good choice?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:40:25 -0600 (CST), Ron DuFresne
<dufresne@...ternet.com> wrote:

> I'd disagree in that the tools are getting to be well enough defined that
> we are all targets.  Best game is to restrict who has access to the ports
> being served whenever possible, openssh has a history that makes this a
> good service to limit this way.  Little need to hide what's not openly
> allowed to all.

take a recent phpBB worm Santy for an example. worm seaches
automatically targets via google - it searches
viewtopic.php. if, for an example, you change that file name to
something else (and also all the referrings inside the phpBB so that
everything still works), then Santy does not find you phpBB as a
target. this is only an illustration to my point.

i wrote my post because you say "the non std port advice is not worth
much". i have lot of cases, when non standard configuration reduces
first impact greatly. of course you shouldn't rely only to non
standard ports/configuration, but it is not totally worthless - it
often helps you a lot.

W.