3 ms·
"Just out of curiosity, and without naming any (domain) names, would you consider the systems where you're running on a nonstandard port to be "popular" or "hig
by gizzlon 14y ago
"Just out of curiosity, and without naming any (domain) names, would you consider the systems where you're running on a nonstandard port to be "popular" or "high value" or "interesting" targets for attackers? (i.e. subjected to targeted attacks rather than just the typical bulk/blind/dumb attacks)?"
No, not at all.
But remember what we are talking about here. You said moving ports is "pointless", and I argued that's it's not because it stops a lot of drive-by attacks. Instead of simply acknowledging this, you spent a lot of words arguing a straw-man.
- jcr 14y agoActually, I didn't intend to be argumentative, contradict you, use straw man nonsense, or try to convince you of anything. I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I'd like to do is just grasp the reason for the discrepancy between your experience and my own (and folks I know)? Obviously, changing ports works for you, and not for me, so I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe it's the type of sites you run, how you host them (racked, cloud, home, ...), upstream/provider filtering, where you're located, or something else?
- gizzlon 14y agoMy guess is just that my sites fly under the radar because they are unimportant, have little traffic etc.. But if people finds you random (not <1024) ssh port, they probably scanned all of you ports? Which seems drastic. Last time I checked, a few years ago, it was not normal to scan all the ports on a large block of IPs. Maybe that changed, but I have never seen that on the few machines and networks I can check. Anyway, my point is that targeted attacks is a another ballgame, but that does not make it pointless to protect against the dumb, automated attacks.