Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary???
From: InHisGrip <servie_platon () yahoo com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Hi everyone, With all due respect and I mean not to offend anyone on this thread. I would like to air some of my views on this matter. To trace back, and for everyone's information. I posted to this thread a few days back. As I was planning of setting up an apache and postfix server in my own home network. I have already installed a pre configured and have selected all the packages that I need, this includes, apache rpm, postfix, ssh and kernel development functionality. So I just chose the packages that I needed. Now, I have my apache running and serving http pages in and out of my small home network. However, I got alarmed when I found out using the lsof -i and netstat -nplee -A inet commands that there were some services and port on a listen mode. So I took the initiative to ask some questions to this group because I wanted to secure this apache box of mine and my home network. Some suggested to remove rpc, nfslock, portmap or what have we, to secure my box. Though, we all know that practically there is no single system here that is impenetrable, well there could be one now but maybe not anymore in the near future. But looking into the ways and means of thwarting or limiting the chances is well worth the effort. For some in this group may have answered to my questions on a harsh note. However, I was still fortunate enough to have some tips and valuable insights from helpful people like Victor, Luca, Kerry, Bruce, Chuck, Paul and even yourself. I understand what you mean about your post, though I may have a running system and web server at that. I could just do up2date and download bugfixes and security updates from redhat site if I feel lazy. But I felt that I wanted to go beyond that or push myself to the limit or to the edge. I hope by doing so, I don't fall off the cliff??? lol.... I do believe that Redhat and other companies who make and develop linux distros are 24/7 doing their best to make their respective distros secure and safe, no doubt about it. And I agree with your point on that issue. But in fairness to Victor, I think his point is mainly to customize one's machine so that only the necessary services are put to its optimum performance and probably lesser maintenance and security headaches. My analogy here is that if I install from the CD Fedora Core 2 from scratch with the default installation in mind. I will be just getting a sedan car for myself.... But if I want to customize this sedan car and make it in a rallye racing condition, I need to add features and make some changes such as rear spoilers, magwheels, side skirt, nitrogen gas booster or whatever modification I have in mind. Now, if I compile my kernel or do some additional changes to this box, I make it into my preferred machine. I may not be a linux expert myself since I am new to linux. And whatever theories that were taught by my instructor from school where all but mere theoritical illustrations. It's still the practical application of the the lessons or theories in real situation that matters most. And for me, I still have a long way to go. I am happy that there are still some fine people out there who is willing to give a helping hand and I appreciate the help. I feel humbled to this group because everytime I post, I am unsure if someone will read it and bother answering it anyways. Though I tried very hard to read the books that I have as well as the howtos but as I have said, whatever is written in the books/manuals may be slightly different in in real scenarios. So, I resort to all the user groups in linux that I am member of. Again, may I take this opportunity of thanking everyone on this group who have tried in one way or another give some assistance. Thank you and more power to this group. Hope you guys never get tired of helping out newbies like me. And hopefully maybe in the future I may also reply to questions and be able to help those in need. Thanks a lot guys!!! InHisGrip, Servie --- vbwilliams () neb rr com wrote:
I don't get your point...if there is one. The kernels that come with any distro are compiled for the masses. I don't compile mine for the masses. I statically compile what I KNOW I need, and everything else is left out. You can't modprobe anything into the kernels I compile...I always remove the ability to do so. If it isn't started at boot time, I'm confident it's not going to get started. I think any internet-facing machine that's actively serving something on the internet for a customer should adhere to that rule. That's my opinion...my opinion isn't going to change because anyone else disagrees with it. It's what I've found to work more than any other method of deployment/implementation over the last decade of working with any distribution of Linux. Likewise, it's also my opinion that any internet facing machine NOT have any *tools* on it that allow the modification and compilation/execution of code on that machine. That means on an internet facing machine I admin, there's no gcc tools on it...it's the bare essentials to run, plus whatever service I need, be it Apache or anything else. DOes that mean I have completely discounted the work that people at Red Hat or the kernel developers have done? No. It just means I don't think their bloat should be on an internet facing machine. My regular workstation and laptop run the full bloat stock Red Hat installation . But there's no way in hell I'd put the same thing on a production machine serving 1 or 2 things, whose hardware will more than likely not change in the next 3-4 years. That is the difference between taking something that someone hands you, or doing it yourself and giving yourself peace of mind because you've decreased the possibility of something getting introduced into your system that could compromise it. Why it would peeve you, I have no idea. I don't just blindly trust what the kernel developers give me either. I testbed EVERY version of the Linux kernel that I'm thinking about deploying, before I ever deploy it...and I look at every change I have time to look at...I look at the changes in release candidates every day...even if it's just eyeballing them. So, no, I don't just blindly trust Red Hat, Suse, or the kernel developers either. And by the way, the last two Red Hat updates for kernels have addressed vulnerabilities in THEIR implementations. Know why any machine I admin wasn't affected even though they were all Red Hat based? Because the kernels I was using were not provided by Red Hat. I ran the vulnerabilities/exploits against them...had no effect. Reason is simple...I wasn't running a version of the kernel that was affected...I was running my own. I do the same thing with OpenSSL, OpenSSH, and Apache...and any other service I NEED. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Tinberg <mtinberg () securepipe com> Date: Monday, July 26, 2004 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary???-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Victor Williams wrote:5. A custom kernel is always a better idea vsblindly trusting whatothers have compiled or let leak into theirs. Icompile customkernels> for any Linux machine (serving internetcontent/servicesor not),regardless of the function.This attitude is a pet peeve of mine. Why dopeople assume thatbecausethey _can_ build a kernel for themselvesthat they mustnaturally be better at it then the people at RedHat,SuSE/Novell or Debian wholive,sleep, eat and breathe the kernel all daylong. I think thatit is as much about blindly throwing away all of the workthat people whomaintainproduction quality kernels do as it isabout trustingtheir work. Another way to put this is, in what is your trust in thevanilla kernelsources,or your builds, based? Hopefully notblind trust 8^)- -- Mark Tinberg <MTinberg () securepipe com> Staff Engineer, SecurePipe Inc. Key fingerprint = FAEF 15E4 FEB3 08E8 66D5 A1A116EE C5E4 E523 6C67-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info seehttp://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/
iD8DBQFBBVhBFu7F5OUjbGcRAg9ZAJ0SdeTOytryMxd7Rbg/QydeiEZ9fACeJMEE
y09h92D5AaB9dAwhxSAkN4w= =AJW0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of theextra ordinary???, (continued)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of theextra ordinary??? Kerry Thompson (Jul 23)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Luca Berra (Jul 22)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Devdas Bhagat (Jul 22)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? InHisGrip (Jul 23)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Victor Williams (Jul 25)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Mark Tinberg (Jul 26)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? R. DuFresne (Jul 26)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Marcus J. Ranum (Jul 27)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Victor Williams (Jul 25)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? vbwilliams (Jul 26)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? Mark Tinberg (Jul 26)
- Re: Port 37628....Is it just another port or out of the extra ordinary??? InHisGrip (Jul 26)