[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4427B242.6010200@proxiad.com>
Date: Mon Mar 27 10:40:11 2006
From: j.grosjean at proxiad.com (Julien GROSJEAN - Proxiad)
Subject: Secure HTTP
Changing default port simply reduce the number of attacks...
Sure, if you don't secure your service, it will change nothing..
Here, it simply stop attacks, so, i make the conclusion than it was
robot attacks...
Kenneth Ng a ?crit :
> On 3/24/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
>> Do the frikking SSL correctly on port 443 like the RFCs intend rather
>> than cooking up some half-assed proxy scheme to work around it.
>>
>> <insert standard "if I had a nickle for every time somebody proposed a
>> partial solution for the wrong part of the problem instead of doing it
>> in the well-understood correct way in the first place, I'd be long since
>> retired" speech here....>
>
> You would be more than rich. You won't believe the number of
> "security improvements" I've had to knock down. One application had
> all the ports reassigned to all non standard ports. When I asked why
> such a brain dead thing was done, they said it was for security, and
> that "it would be too much work to find these ports". Then I showed
> them nmap with the port identification option. Their jaw dropped to
> the floor. They had *NO* security. Anonymous ftp world writable,
> http with no id or password allowing web page updating, telnet with no
> id or password. Needless to say, a redesign was required.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists