Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:25:04 +0000
From:      Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
To:        Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: denying spam hosts ssh access - good idea?
Message-ID:  <4B4B42D0.9070101@infracaninophile.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20100111140105.GI61025@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

[-- Attachment #1 --]
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I'm thinking of denying ssh access to host from which
> I get brute force ssh attacks.
> 
> HOwever, I see in /etc/hosts.allow:
> 
> # Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea, but if you
> # need to do it, here's how
> #sshd : .evil.cracker.example.com : deny
> 
> Why is it not a good idea?

Probably because ssh is likely to be the only method of login access
you have to a remote server, and hosts.allow could conceivably be spoofed
into blocking your legitimate access?   In any case, hosts.allow is a poor relation to using a real firewall -- it has no access to the lower level bits
of the networking code, so has to allow a full tcp connection setup before it
can block anything.  Some daemons allow quite a lot of interaction with the
remote site when using hosts.allow functionality -- eg. sendmail will
apparently go through all of the stages of accepting an incoming e-mail from
a denied host, right up to the 'MAIL FROM...' section of the SMTP transaction
where it will respond with a 500 permanent failure error code.  [admittedly 
this does have the benefit that the other side will then immediately give up 
trying to send the message if it's playing by the RFC rules. (Most spam-bots 
don't, of course.)  Otherwise, you'ld get the remote side retrying the message 
several times an hour over the next 5 days before it timed out and gave up.

> Also, apparently in older ssh there was DenyHosts option,
> but no longer in the current version.
> Is there a replacement for DenyHOsts?
> Or is there a good reason for such option not to be used?

I believe you can do something like this:

match address 192.168.23.0/24,172.16.0.0/16
	ForceCommand /usr/sbin/nologin

but this is not foolproof, as it is run via the users' login shell
and a sufficiently cunning person can arrange for all sorts of interesting
things to happen from their shell initialization files...

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
                                                  Kent, CT11 9PW


[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEAREIAAYFAktLQtYACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwtfwCfTn2hvHQST3hiUmskvrpwAcG9
+R4AnRLqHVUgG8H2j1bAU1Oromv6tKvq
=Qi7V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
home | help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B4B42D0.9070101>