Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2013, Michael Cronenworth sent: > Since there are only 65,535 ports to scan, anyone at any time can > easily scan for an open port in seconds. Arguing about semantics of a > port number is more Security Through Obscurity(tm). I think there's some difference between picking something that makes you an obvious target to dickheads on the internet, to just suffering the random bad luck of being port scanned. Though I certainly agree that simply changing the port number is a crap idea about security. I wouldn't go picking attractive numbers to cretins, nor any of the commonly attacked ports because they're known to be used by vulnerable services, or by waiting trojans. e.g. I think it'd be asking for trouble to have something answer to the port numbers used by peer-to-peer networking. Give any sort of response, and you're advertising yourself. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.9.8-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 27 19:19:57 UTC 2013 x86_64 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
