3 ms·
The article addresses this. He did a poll, and just under 50% of people use the default ports. So just by changing your default port, you eliminate half the b
by acoard 6y ago
The article addresses this. He did a poll, and just under 50% of people use the default ports. So just by changing your default port, you eliminate half the break-in attempts.
Now you're absolutely right that this only deters less-skilled/inept hackers, a more competent hacker easily gets past this. But it's worth dwelling on the fact that we still stopped a substantial number of requests. Port knocking is definitely an improvement (i.e. more obscure). I'd guess with port-knocking more than 90% (even 99%) of attempts would completely miss it. The goal here isn't to rely completely on obscurity. It's security in depth. Your SSH server should still be secure and locked down.
The other question with this is what's your threat vector. Most people decry security through obscurity because an APT can easily bypass it. They can, but most people trying to hack you are script kiddies. Imagine an SSH exploit was leaked in the wild – all the script kiddies would be hammering everything on port 22 immediately.
- branon 6y agoThe poll is my biggest issue with an otherwise agreeable article, the sample size and representation on Twitter doesn't make for anything close to reliable percentages. I understand its use as a demonstrative aid but especially in the context of security, hinging your policies on the outcome of a Twitter poll seems like... well, security through obscurity.