Re: Some new SSH exploit script?

[Steve Smith <smith6050 () yahoo com>]

Thanks for these numbers Thor.  I'm hearing many good
ideas here and it really boils down to resources and
level of effort.  If you have the resources to capture
and analyze the massive number of logs and the ability
to do event correlation, it makes sense to leave
services running on default ports.  If the resources
are limited, why not change the default ports and
reduce the footprint of your logs and raise the fruit
higher.  Granted you may not have enough in the logs
to fingerprint the next attack vector but if the
attacker isn't knocking on your door, why bother
answering?

I ran similar test months ago on a web server running
on port 64800 and had very few hit verses millions on
the standard port 80. 

Steve Smith

--- "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
wrote:

>  
> > Changing the port number, is akin, to hiding the
> door, because your
> > afraid of the lock installed in it. It only raises
> the bar to the
> > special olympics level.
> >
> > I believe in security in-depth, but this depth is
> so superficial, I
> > really don't think it's worth it.
>
> No, it's akin to hiding the door in _addition_ to
> having strong locks on it.
> This subject comes up here from time to time, and it
> basically always comes
> down to someone saying "it's so trivial that it
> doesn't matter" and others
> saying "if it helps at all, even if only slightly,
> then it's a good thing."
>
> I number myself among the latter group- if it raises
> your fruit higher than
> the guy next to you, then go for it.  Changing
> default listening ports
> immediately obviates you from standard/worm/kiddie
> traffic.  That, in itself
> is a good enough reason for me.
>
> We had this discussion over on the ISA list about
> RDP several months back.
> After that thread, I hosted terminal services and
> SQL on 2 boxes: one on
> 3389/1433, the other on 53343/43343 respectively for
> Feb, March and part of
> April.  There were something like 45,000 failed RDP
> logon attemps on 3389,
> and not a single logon attempt (other than from me)
> on 53343.  The SQL
> numbers were almost 200,000 on 1433, and something
> like 10 on 43343.  I was
> actually pretty surprised to see the 10.  (I've got
> the actual numbers on
> the box itself, I might bring it up and get the
> actual figures if I get
> time).
>
> You can speculate about port-scanning worms,
> "intelligent" viruses, etc all
> you want, but they're just not being written (yet). 
> Moving my RDP listener
> to 53343 prevented over 45,000 logon attempts.  To
> me, that is not a
> superficial security-in-depth mechanism.  There are
> a million different
> things that *could* have been done, but they just
> weren't.
>
> I'll continue to host RDP on an alternate port
> because it provides some
> value, albeit small, to my security in depth
> strategy.
>
> I also continue to find value in "source port"
> firewall rules where only
> connections to services initiated from a particular
> source port are allowed.
> Others have said that practice is also just
> "security through obscurity" yet
> I think it is a good idea, and it works for me.  I
> use this method to help
> protect access to my production servers for remote
> RDP access - RDP listens
> on an alternate port, and my ISA server only allows
> the connection when made
> from a specific source port (I actually use a small
> range of source ports) -
> there has never even been a connection attempt made
> (other than from me.)
>
> Given actual data I have collected, I'll continue to
> use this method as
> well.
>
>
>
> t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Concerned about Web Application Security? 
> Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only
> one to win the Analyst's 
> Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web
> applications continue to rise, 
> you need to proactively protect your applications
> from hackers. Cenzic has the 
> most comprehensive solutions to meet your
> application security penetration 
> testing and vulnerability management needs. You have
> an option to go with a 
> managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an
> enterprise software 
> (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how
> a managed service can 
> help you:
> http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php 
> And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit
> for you to confirm your 
> results from other product. Contact us at
> request () cenzic com for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic

Concerned about Web Application Security? 
Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's 
Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise, 
you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the 
most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration 
testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a 
managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software 
(Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can 
help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php 
And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your 
results from other product. Contact us at request () cenzic com for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------