4 ms·
The only benefit of this is clean logs. We had auditd running and the bots blew up our SSH logs. Was so ugly that I killed SSH on all but a single entry point s
by systematical 8y ago
The only benefit of this is clean logs. We had auditd running and the bots blew up our SSH logs. Was so ugly that I killed SSH on all but a single entry point server, which is better security anyways. Then I finally just killed logging failed attempts. Since we use two-factor authentication with a key (you have) + password (you know) I was not very worried about this. Prob should just use something like fail2ban though eh?
- Havoc 8y ago>The only benefit of this is clean logs. Except no. Less attempts translate directly into less risk.
- detaro 8y agoLess attempts of something that has zero chance of succeeding (password login against a system that requires keys) doesn't really translate into less risk.
- Havoc 8y ago>Less attempts of something that has zero chance of succeeding All attempts have a >zero chance of succeeding. Honestly...struggling to see how this concept is even remotely contentious or how someone could credibly argue against it. If the number of brute force attempts drops substantially then the chances of success drop too. This is true for a high security setup and a low security setup. In both cases there is going to be a proportionate drop.