SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

November 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Always Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Always Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:31:51 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 10:20 -0600, Phong Nguyen wrote:

> Can't they just portscan you? 

Yes but all the opportunist hackers do not. Those people are searching
for carelessly set-up installations to break into.  Few, if any, hackers
are prepared to spend time searching for possible ports - all the way up
to 64,000+ - when lots of potentially easier standard 22 port
opportunities exist.

An installation which uses a non-standard SSH port is likely to be more
resilient to attacks than an installation using the standard SSH port.
Why would a hacker, keen on breaking-in, waste their time trying to hack
an installation where security is likely to be stronger than a basic
installation ?

Using non-standard ports does not make any installation immune from
attacks. It is merely the first of several security conscious attempts
to resist successful attacks.

Paul. 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2