3 ms·
I've had ssh on 47999 for a long time :). It stopped my logs from getting splattered with failed attempts.
by noir_lord 8y ago
I've had ssh on 47999 for a long time :).
It stopped my logs from getting splattered with failed attempts.
- ASalazarMX 8y agoConveniency through obscurity.
- noir_lord 8y agoYep, which is far better than 'security' through obscurity.
- phs318u 8y agoI'm so sorry, but my OCD could not let this pass. It's "convenience" not "conveniency". Sorry. EDITED TO ADD: I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment though.
- dylan604 8y agolook up at that thing whizzing over your head; convenience doesn't rhyme with security. ;-)
- noja 8y agoBetter to have it listening on a port below 1024, otherwise a non-root user could impersonate the ssh daemon.
- noir_lord 8y agoI agree except if a non-root user I don't know about is binding to any ports from inside then I'm already hosed.
- noja 8y agoA non-root user might not be a person, it might be a compromised php script.
- noir_lord 8y agoTrue but if my system has a compromised anything binding to a port then they can talk to it via whatever they want at that point. I'm of the opinion that if an attacker gets a local account then I'm already hosed given the regularity of local privilege escalation CVE's
- deathanatos 8y agoThis would be detected by SSH, as the host key wouldn't match. (The impersonator wouldn't be able to use the same host key, as they would need the private key, and that requires root privs.)
- noja 8y agoA lot of people who don't care much for checking keys.