Re: Some new SSH exploit script?




Since amoebazone seems to be a popular target for the kiddiez out there (the joys of a pen-test list moderator), I'll add my 2 pesos.


> I beg to differ with you -- running a standard service on a non-standard
> port is a bid for security through obscurity.

I don't see what the net effect is. You'll still see unauthorized connection

The net effect is (currently) that this silly attempts are no longer
spoiling the logfiles. On one host I moved my sshd to some other port
as well. Not because of security concerns but simply to better view my
log entries.

I have to agree with Christine here. The only advantage of moving to a non-standard port is minimizing automated attacks and reduced logfile noise. This isn't a security measure, more like a sanity measure. A determined/skilled attacker will still find the open port, fingerprint it with amap or similar to determine servicetype, and point exploit du jour to the right place.

As you both stated, if you're vulnerable, you're vulnerable... moving to non-standard port only ensures the ones targetting you have some semblance of clue (or aren't bots).


access. A single syn doesn't worry me. An endless chain of syns to a
specific port will raise questions directed to the location the syns
originate from. But honestly, this only happens on rare occasions.

Lucky you. I get 1-3k+ ssh attempts per day. For a while now I've gone through the source IP's to compile a list of compromised machines or attackers but it's just not worth the effort. I've finally decided to install fail2ban to blackhole IP's of multiple failed attempts to reduce log chatter.


For what? It's not necessary. Since the day I moved the port I just
saw one single attempt to connect to that host on that port, which does
not belong to the allowed ones. And that one checked it for being a web-
server.

The only thing holding me back from changing to a non-standard is the amount of machine hopping I have to do at the day job and the existing FW allows outbound making moving to a non-standard more trouble than it's worth.


--
Erin Carroll
moderator, SecurityFocus pen-test list
"I am magically delicious"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic

Concerned about Web Application Security? Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise, you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your results from other product. Contact us at request@xxxxxxxxxx for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Relevant Pages

  • RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
    ... > default SQL port to anything else, they would have never been touched by ... risk posed by slow insidious attacks when defenders are always facing off ... > characters) to prevent every SQL scanning worm in existence. ... > security through obscurity doesn't work, when clearly it does have its ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • RE: Need help from a group of experts. I am not a network expert but I play one on tv.
    ... If I had half a penny for every port scan and "bot" initiated attack, ... The single most important thing when it comes to firewalls and security. ... Restricting POP3 e-mail on your network is a step in a right direction. ... most attacks are coming from owned machines. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Getting around corporate firewalls to access ssh server
    ... have firewalls that block outgoing access to my machine. ... may give one an illusion of security, but it is still the old 'security by ... I already have port 22 in use by another machine so I have to use another ... scanners (I have password authorization disabled so these attacks should ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: No attack = true stealth?
    ... > Pro 2002 and closed the last opening UPNP port? ... situation as yourself --- no attacks at all!! ... A false sense of security it could be. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: No attack = true stealth?
    ... > Pro 2002 and closed the last opening UPNP port? ... situation as yourself --- no attacks at all!! ... A false sense of security it could be. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)