Good security is like an onion. The users' think it smells...
No, it's layered.
Changing the the sshd port from the default does add a layer, a thin
layer, but a layer all the same.
The rate limiting is a somewhat thicker layer.
I personally prefer to block all ssh traffic from the internet and have
my customers vpn to my server which let's me ssh over the vpn to their
machines. If they happen to have dynamic addresses, it doesn't matter to me.
Patrick wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote:
@James:
As for the "security through obscurity" post, you are missing the
point. Changing the port number that SSH runs on is not "security
through obscurity". Moving an already highly secure service to a
different port so scanners don't hit it automatically is a different
thing. This type of move is purely to reduce the amount of garbage in
one's log file due to automated scans. However, I do agree that there
are probably better ways to handle the situation, such as using rate
limiting.
Not to mention that if there is a lot less "garbage", it is much easier
to catch
something trying to sneak in. So it does have an element of security to it.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Milton Calnek BSc, A/Slt(Ret.)
milton@xxxxxxxxxx
306-717-8737
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
