4 ms·

This limiting approach is new to me. Why not just drop current and block future connections?

• breckinloggins 9y ago
  It looks to me like the equivalent of keeping telemarketers on the phone in an inane conversation instead of immediately hanging up on them. The latter just frees them up to call the next victim.
  • tener 9y ago
    In that case I'm not sure if it works. I fully expect the spammers to have the software to deal with similar behavior. In contrast with telemarketers the computers multitask pretty well.
    • pyvpx 9y ago
      there is still an upper limit to the number of TCP connections an IP can open. sadly this does remind me of that photo of a Darth Vader with a Brita water filter in a large body of water. you're not really going to have an impact, but you are doing something
      • infogulch 9y ago
        Just in case you're really lazy: https://www.google.com/search?q=Darth+Vader+with+a+Brita+water+filter+in+a+large+body+of+water&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=Darth+Vader+with+a+Brita+wat...
  • kazinator 9y ago
    To do that better, what you do is route the password cracking attempts to some honeypot box. By this I mean that you set up common accounts with easily guessed passwords. But all of these lead to some dedicated machine where you're in a pseudo-shell that won't let you do a damned thing.