On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 13:07, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 02:59:25AM +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > > > > > > To prevent to let the script kids ... > ... > > > Security by obscurity.. :-) > > > > moment this is enough to stop the scripts. When they begin to really > > scan for the ports with SSH behind I will activate portknocking. Not > > because I have insecure passwords in use or do not keep both eyes on > > necessary security updates, but because I do not like to have to go each > > day to hundreds of log file lines caused by wannabee intruders. > > This sounds like a valid use of port knocking. > In and of itself port knocking should be understood. > > This is an interesting critique of it. > http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/08/02/1954253.shtml If not mistaken that's the exact article I was reading(I can't verify as I'm now on a Plane). However, to me, (and most others) that's a very valid use of port knocking. Yeah.. you can do ethereal/tcpdump traces but that's a whole lot of work to do. It's not like you're beraking into Fort Knox right? To me, it's not that they can't get in, even if they can, I rather just make sure that they don't have it easy, -- Ow Mun Heng Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 on D600 1.4Ghz CPU kernel 2.6.7-2.jul1-interactive Neuromancer 18:44:35 up 21:57, 2 users, load average: 0.45, 1.84, 2.14
