Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:14:46 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Subject: Re: Breakin attempt Message-ID: <44zkgt6j95.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <444nz17xz4.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> (Lowell Gilbert's message of "Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:11:27 -0400") References: <000001cc90c0$a0c16050$e24420f0$@org> <4EA2CE72.5030202@cran.org.uk> <20111022161242.11803f76.freebsd@edvax.de> <444nz17xz4.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> writes: > Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes: > >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: >>> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're >>> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in >>> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a different port. >> >> Is there _any_ reason why moving from port 22 to something >> different is _not_ a solution? >> >> Reason why I'm asking: Moving SSH away from its default port >> seems to be a relatively good solution as break-in attempts >> concentrate on default ports. So in case a sysadmin decides >> to move SSH to a "hidden" location, what could be an argument >> against this decision? > > Connecting from behind other people's paranoid firewalls gets difficult > on other ports. And, yes, I realize this isn't a problem for most people, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who runs into it, either.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44zkgt6j95.fsf>