From owner-freebsd-security Mon Sep 3 7:53:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mta2-svc.virgin.net (mta2-svc.virgin.net [62.253.164.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD0837B409 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 07:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from z402235w ([194.168.3.4]) by mta2-svc.virgin.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010903145353.YDQZ287.mta2-svc.virgin.net@z402235w>; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:53:53 +0100 Message-ID: <044501c13488$3edcf830$6100900a@private.ntl.com> From: "Nonya" To: "Not Going to Tell You" , References: Subject: Re: Possible New Security Tool For FreeBSD, Need Your Help. Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:53:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > I have 240 boxes running sshd and restricted to our IP address on the > Internet. We just want to hide the sshd port until we need it. >But by hidding the sshd port, > maybe, just maybe, we can reduce the number of script kiddies from trying > sshd scripts. Running sshd on a non-standard port would probably have a similar effect, especialy if you choose a port not included in nmaps default scans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message