Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force log
- From: Bob Radvanovsky <rsradvan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:26:57 -0600
Yeah...I didn't see that. I thought those were ports. My bad... :((
----- Original Message -----
From: Joachim Schipper [mailto:j.schipper@xxxxxxxxxx]
To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force log
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:27AM -0600, Bob Radvanovsky wrote:_______________________________________________
I am going to test these rules out -- this looks REALLy good!
But...I've got just ONE question: why on Earth would you permit
ICMP???
(Outgoing) echo requests and port-unreachable responses (to UDP
packets), just to name a couple.
Source quench and redirect are both powerful, but also more than a
little dangerous to allow.
And what significances are ports 50, 51, 1599, 1600 and 1601? 443 and 80are HTTP-S and HTTP (respectively), 123 is NTP -- I realize that, but what
are these others ports used for?
We are talking about IP *protocols* 50 and 51, which are ESP and AH -
the IPsec protocols.
The 1599-1601 ports are used to open/close the ssh port, as explained in
the article linked.
This firewall configuration should work as advertised. Of course,
restricting logins to public key authentication should work, and has the
added advantage that one does not try to login from yet another
keylogger-infected Windows box.
Joachim
-rrecent --rcheck --name SSH -j ACCEPT
*filter
:INPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
:RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0]
-A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
-A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 10.0.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 51 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -m
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -jACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m udp -p udp --dport 123 -jACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -jACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1599 -mrecent --name SSH --remove -j DROP
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1600 -mrecent --name SSH --set -j DROP
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1601 -mrecent --name SSH --remove -j DROP
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibitedSSH through iptables --hashlimit
COMMIT
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthijs van Otterdijk [mailto:thotter@xxxxxxxxx]
To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force login attempts via
suggested,
I haven't tried this myself, and I don't know if it is already
logs.but this should stop all the pesky scriptkiddies from filling up your
_______________________________________________Might prove to be a better solution, who knows:
http://aplawrence.com/Security/sshloginattack.html
Matthijs
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- Prev by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force log
- Next by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force login attempts via SSH through iptables --hashlimit
- Previous by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] reduction of brute force log
- Next by thread: [Full-disclosure] Mozilla Thunderbird : Multiple Information Disclosure Vulnerabilities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|