From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep  4 17:50:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AB116A4CE
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 17:50:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from blacksheep.csh.rit.edu (blacksheep.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8B043D1D
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 17:50:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from wxs@csh.rit.edu)
Received: from fury.csh.rit.edu (fury.csh.rit.edu
	[IPv6:2001:470:1f00:135:a00:20ff:fe8d:5399])
	by blacksheep.csh.rit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8547A90C0; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 13:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fury.csh.rit.edu (Postfix, from userid 44963)
	id 407F8147C; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 13:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:50:28 -0400
From: Wesley Shields <wxs@csh.rit.edu>
To: vxp <vxp@digital-security.org>
Message-ID: <20040904175028.GA25772@csh.rit.edu>
References: <20040904093042.B37306@digital-security.org>
	<20040904100640.E37469@digital-security.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040904100640.E37469@digital-security.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: Colin Alston <karnaugh@karnaugh.za.net>
Subject: Re: fooling nmap
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:50:31 -0000

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:07:36AM -0400, vxp wrote:

> no. obscurity as the _only_ "security" is no security.
> there's nothing wrong with ADDING obscurity, however. =)
> 
> --Val

That is true, but the problem with these kinds of things is that users
will think that with a simple flip of a sysctl they are secure, when in
fact that are no more secure than before.  If you are truely concerened
with security there are many better things you can do to tighten your
box down.

With that said, this would certainly be a fun exercise.

-- WXS