From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1EMWjh-0007eT-Cy
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:16:33 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j93GsQhp000573;
	Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:54:26 GMT
Received: from irina.lenderlab.com (irina.lenderlab.com [166.70.60.148])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j93Go9YQ030982
	for <gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:50:10 GMT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by irina.lenderlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35CE23D894
	for <gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2005 10:58:15 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from irina.lenderlab.com ([166.70.60.148])
 by localhost (irina [166.70.60.148]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
 id 12137-01 for <gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org>;
 Mon,  3 Oct 2005 10:58:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.252] (unknown [166.70.156.138])
	by irina.lenderlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ED223D7FF
	for <gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2005 10:58:14 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <43416522.4010407@lenderlab.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:06:42 -0600
From: Kirk Hoganson <kirk2@lenderlab.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050310)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-security+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-security+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-security+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-security.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-security@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-security@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] [OT?] automatically firewalling off IPs
References: <43404CB8.3@lunatic.net.nz>	<20051002211923.GA3186@maxiez.national-net.com>	<43412B8F.5040207@cs.utk.edu> <20051003141852.4cugwa2ic0ckkk0c@www.rnl.ist.utl.pt>
In-Reply-To: <20051003141852.4cugwa2ic0ckkk0c@www.rnl.ist.utl.pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lenderlab.com
X-Archives-Salt: 54faae75-b668-479a-9ddb-f445306d3781
X-Archives-Hash: b052bf00ec2bc38727963fd6fa26708f


> 
>> Jeremy,
>>   I agree with MaxieZ, a combination of SEC and Iptables work nicely 
>> in this situation and could be extended to other services like FTP, 
>> IMAP, Web authentication, etc.  I personally do not feel that security 
>> through obscurity by changing the port numbers is a viable solution.
> 


A port knocker of some sort is a much more secure solution that will 
allow you to block all unwanted IP's but still allow for dynamic 
addresses.  There are port knockers that listen on various ports and 
work like a combination lock to open the port, and there are others that 
use a more secure one time pad "magic packet" kind of authentication to 
open the port for your IP.  It is more work to setup, but it is more 
secure than just changing the port.  Remember a few years ago when ssh 
had a remote exploit?  You probably shouldn't leave that port open.
-- 
gentoo-security@gentoo.org mailing list