Re: Somebody is keep trying to ssh into my systems, how can I stop that?



left_coast wrote:

responder wrote:

left_coast wrote:

responder wrote:

left_coast wrote:

[...]
Message <trc2q3-608.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
HOWWWWW????? SPECIFIC LY.

Valid question, how come you can't ANSWER IT????



It has already been answered. I answered it in context, - twice, I
believe. You ignored and/or dissed it both times.


No, it has not.

Yes it has.

... and I'll save us both some time:

No, it has not. Yes it has. No, it has not. Yes it has. No, it has
not. Yes it has. No, it has not. Yes it has. No, it has not. Yes it
has.

And so we can probably both agree to disagree. Agreed?

All you would have to do is PROVIDE MESSAGE ID's For PROOF.

Message-ID: <t0bjp3-vck.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<quote>
But do tell me, just HOW, SPECIFICALLY would you attack my setup? Until
you can supply SPECIFICS, I see nothing but vague unsupported claims that
are so vague as to be MEANINGLESS.

</quote>

Message-ID: <kuCdnbqWOsZoo1HZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@xxxxxxx>

<quote>
I wouldn't attack your setup. But someone malicious and in the right
place could, seemingly, take over your system very easily and simply, ...
and completely. (No supercomputers required!) MITM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MITM

You are mistaken if you think your "secure", portknocking protected ssh
connection is immune to intrusion and hijacking. And it would be
irresponsible to be more highly specific here in details. So I won't say
any more than to just simply answer your question.

</quote>

IS that SOOOOO
hard? I have stopped taking the word of ANYONE in this group. If they can
supply some spaciffics

[...]


Your question was answered within the context in which it was asked. When
you disregarded this answer and asked the same question again, I answered
it again within the context that it was asked. If you need for me to get
the message ID's of those other messages I can do that, but I would think
that you should have the sense to know what you are reading and writing
without all that. Let me know.




Ron Ostrander wrote:

You are indeed a Master of the Rational Discussion.
.