4 ms·
Don't do this. It adds almost no extra security and makes it hard for routers that prioritizes port 22 traffic as interactive.
by afhof 14y ago
Don't do this. It adds almost no extra security and makes it hard for routers that prioritizes port 22 traffic as interactive.
- kristofferR 14y agoSure, it'll not stop dedicated manual intrusion attempts, but it will actually prevent a ton of automated bots from even just trying to connect with common passwords through SSH.
- corin_ 14y agoWhich is irrelevant if you have any one of: strong passwords, no passwords, fail2ban
- lhnn 14y agoWhich is relevant if you're one to actually look at your login attempt logs.
- falcolas 14y agoWorth looking at: http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2013/02/theres-no-protection-in-high-ports.html http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2013/02/theres-no-protection-in-hi...
- kristofferR 14y ago2222 is a dumb choice as an alternative port, it's both obvious and quite commonly used. I'm using a port on 4XXXX-range that's normally not used for anything and therefore not scanned by the bots unless all the 65536 ports are. The automated login attempts disappeared almost immediately, except for a few that were quickly blocked. Now the logs are clean from automated login bots, the only thing left are real dedicated hacking attempts that is worth pursuing further.
- jebblue 14y agoIt's what I do, you can't break in a door that doesn't exist, only those you know exist.
- hackerboos 14y ago>Sure, it'll not stop dedicated manual intrusion attempts, but it will actually prevent a ton of automated bots Doesn't take long to port scan a server.
- brokentone 14y agoGoing back to the classics, is port knocking still a thing? (I've been out of this discussion for a while, serious question)
- robflynn 14y agoOne of my freelance projects uses port knocking, but they're the only one I've worked with that have used it in recent years.
- webosb 14y agoguess i'm going back to port 22...
- vahe 14y agoI'm convinced too. Back to 22 we go.