2016-12-08 19:04 GMT+09:00 Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com>: > On Thursday 08 December 2016 04:19:00 EenyMeenyMinyMoa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2016-12-08 5:25 GMT+09:00 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk>: >>> Random script kiddy attacks are of absolutely no consequence. Annoying >>> perhaps, but no threat whatsoever. In terms of security, changing the >>> port number for ssh does bugger all. >> >> What security risk can changing the port number for ssh cause? > > If it does bugger all, it isn't a security risk either. "Does bugger all" > means that it doesn't do anything whatsoever, so I take it to mean (possibly > erroneously) that: changing the port number does not create a security risk, > but neither does it improve security. It just introduces unnecessary further > complication.
I see. I thought the meaning of "bugger" as "wreck". There are one word of which I couldn't get the meaning in the last email of Henning. But I'll put it aside. For safer security(at least I guess), I changed the permissions of authorized_keys id_rsa_for_test.pub known_hosts into 600. This time in the manner: one change, test, succeed, and then next... I could also login by ssh without password. Cheers, EenyMeenyMinyMoa
