3 ms·
Did you even read the article? Let’s say that there’s a new zero day out for OpenSSH that’s owning boxes with impunity. Is anyone willing to argue that someone
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
Did you even read the article?
Let’s say that there’s a new zero day out for OpenSSH that’s owning boxes with impunity. Is anyone willing to argue that someone unleashing such an attack would be equally likely to launch it against non-standard port vs. port 22? If not, then your risk goes down by not being there, it’s that simple.
- jfindley 10y agoYes. Please don't insinuate that others haven't read the article. It might be worth reading the HN guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, from the article, please note paragraphs like: "I configured my SSH daemon to listen on port 24 in addition to its regular port of 22 so I could see the difference in attempts to connect to each (the connections are usually password guessing attempts). My expected result is far fewer attempts to access SSH on port 24 than port 22, which I equate to less risk to my, or any, SSH daemon." I was pointing out that this is silly. Those "attempts to connect" are totally meaningless, as I explained.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoHe provides a very specific use case (exploiting a zero day) where they are not meaningless.