On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 08:48, Lew Bloch wrote: > The more I hear here and read elsewhere, the more I moderate my position > - I do see usefulness in it, but I still don't plan to use it. > > I agree that "security through obscurity" is a useful, if small, part of > "security in depth". > > In my case I don't choose to use portknocking, but now that I've > researched more about it, including rebuttals to some of the criticisms, > I've come to appreciate it better. I might use it under the right > circumstances. That is one of the neat things with Linux in general. You can choose which bits and pieces you want to use or don't want to use. And in most cases you have a choice of several items that do pretty much the same thing, so you can choose one that best meets your desired goals. There is no magic bullet to make a system secure. You just need to make your system a little bit more secure than the next guys system. :) -- Scot L. Harris webid@xxxxxxxxxx At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.
