Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: server security
From: "Elazar Broad" <elazar () hushmail com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:10:35 -0400
+1 The less an attacker knows about your infrastructure the better, as long as you are not solely relying on that obscurity to protect said infrastructure. Consider this: the more an attacker has to poke around because your aren't running certain services on their default port, or say disabling client scripting on your .NET Regex validator so that the validation expression isn't exposed in the page, the more noise said attacker is going to make while performing reconnaissance, and the better the chance that they will be detected by any detective controls that are in place. My .0002 elazar On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Thor (Hammer of God) <thor () hammerofgod com> wrote:
I completely agree with Gage. The way I see it, security through obscurity is perfectly valid as long as the control remains obscured. I think the "anyone can just scan your ports" is somewhat specious in that most (if not something like 99% or so (unqualified opinion of course)) traffic is simply noise and scans for standard ports. This is particularly true when it matters most: during a worm outbreak or a newly published vulnerability. Attackers simply don't have the time nor the inclination to go through and perform slow and loud scans when they can quickly move on to the next target. If 90% of the targets have services on the default ports, then it makes far more sense to just go after the easily targets. Perfect case-in-point is the recent RDP unpleasantness. Non- standard port deployments were automatically removed from the target scans for 3389. I don't see how any can argue against the security value of such a configuration. t Timothy "Thor" Mullen www.hammerofgod.com Thor's Microsoft Security Bible -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk [mailto:full- disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Gage Bystrom Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:25 AM To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] server security Well thats a bit of an iffy one. I'd say it IS a security measure, albeit one that is solely effective if and only if compounded with other measures. It's unlikely, but you never know, you just might miss out on a nasty worm all because you werent running on a default port one day. On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Rob <synja () synfulvisions com> wrote:We need to make a distinction between security and obscurityhere. The only time changing ports actually hardens a service in any way is when the port requires elevated rights to bind, changing to 1025 for example removes the root requirement. Any actual or theoretical vulnerabilities still exist. If somebody is looking at your server, they'll find the port without much trouble. Alternate ports can remove junk traffic from logs, so there is a benefit, if not entirely a security one.Rob Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Alex Dolan <dolan.alex () gmail com> Sender: listbounce () securityfocus com Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:44:57 To: Littlefield, Tyler<tyler () tysdomain com> Cc: <security-basics () securityfocus com> Subject: Re: server security One tip I have is to set SSH to a port other than 22, I don'tneed totell anyone how devastating it is if someone did actually getaccessto that service. Putting it on some other port reduces your risk On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Littlefield, Tyler<tyler () tysdomain com> wrote:Hello: I have a couple questions. First, I'll explain what I did: I set up iptables and removed all unwanted services. Iptablesblockseverything, then only opens what it wants. I also use theaddrtypemodule to limit broadcast and unspec addresses, etc. I also dosomemalformed packet work where I just drop everything that looks malformed (mainly by the flags). 2) I secured ssh: blocked root logins, set it up so only usersin thesshusers group can connect, and set it only to allow ppk. 3) I installed aid. 4) disabled malformed packets and forwarding/etc in sysctl. This is a basic web server that runs email, web and a coupleother things.It's only running on a linode512, so I don't have the abilityto setup a ton of stuff; I also think that would make things more ofamess. What else would be recommended? Also, I'm looking to add something to the web server; sometimesInotice that there are a lot of requests from people scanningforcommon urls like wordpress/phpbb3/etc, what kind ofpreventative measures exist for this?-- Take care, Ty http://tds-solutions.net The aspen project: a barebones light-weight mud engine: http://code.google.com/p/aspenmud He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is afool;he that dares not reason is a slave. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Securing Apache Web Server with thawte Digital CertificateInthis guide we examine the importance of Apache-SSL and whoneeds anSSL certificate. We look at how SSL works, how it benefitsyourcompany and how your customers can tell if a site is secure.You willfind out how to test, purchase, install and use a thawteDigitalCertificate on your Apache web server. Throughout, bestpractices forset-up are highlighted to help you ensure efficient ongoing management of your encryption keys and digital certificates.http://www.dinclinx.com/Redirect.aspx?36;4175;25;1371;0;5;946;e13b6 be442f727d1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Securing Apache Web Server with thawte Digital Certificate Inthisguide we examine the importance of Apache-SSL and who needs anSSL certificate. We look at how SSL works, how it benefits your company and how your customers can tell if a site is secure. You will find out how to test, purchase, install and use a thawte Digital Certificate on your Apache web server. Throughout, best practices for set-up are highlighted to help you ensure efficient ongoing management of your encryption keys and digital certificates.http://www.dinclinx.com/Redirect.aspx?36;4175;25;1371;0;5;946;e13b6 be442f727d1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: server security Gage Bystrom (Jun 21)
- Re: server security Thor (Hammer of God) (Jun 21)
- Re: server security Daniel Hadfield (Jun 25)
- Re: server security Thor (Hammer of God) (Jun 25)
- Re: server security Daniel Hadfield (Jun 25)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: server security Elazar Broad (Jun 22)
- Re: server security Thor (Hammer of God) (Jun 21)