full-disclosure - Re: SSH brute force blocking tool

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: <242a0a8f0611280838w1dacc166yae4235c858f5a545@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:38:10 -0500
From: "Brian Eaton" <eaton.lists@...il.com>
To: "Thierry Zoller" <Thierry@...ler.lu>
Cc: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...too.org>,
	full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: SSH brute force blocking tool

On 11/28/06, Thierry Zoller <Thierry@...ler.lu> wrote:

> TO> J, you have made an attempt to fix it, but is is not sufficient.
> TO> An attacker can still add arbitrary hosts to the deny list.
>
> Can you propose a fix ? Apart from the aggressivness of this thread
> I find it interesting to read (from a tech standpoint).

Unlike Tavis, I haven't had the guts to actually install and test this
little contraption.  But it looks like setting the sshd config option
"UseDNS no" might help.  Then sshd will log the client IP instead of the
client hostname, and you no longer need to rely on the attacker's DNS to
tell you which IP to blacklist.

Someone could still purposefully trigger a ban of an IP address they
controlled, but I don't think they could do arbitrary IPs any longer.

Regards,
Brian

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/