On Sunday 22 October 2006 22:41, you wrote:
> this isn't correct. Every service had some security problems in the
> past. Imagin that your service X is vulnerable (only since a few h
> by a zero day exploit or so) and someone tries to exploit it at 2:00 in
> the morning.
Good thing there cant be an
> It is like a port knocking service but a little bit different:
>
> Normaly a port knocking service uses TCP/UDP, but openportd
> uses ICMP echo response packets because they are not so easy
> to send like echo requests or TCP/UDP port tests (kiddies could
> simply use ping or nmap for this job).
Steffen Wendzel wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:42:18 +0200 "Inigo T. A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> : If you have a security problem with a service, the only "more secure"
> : action is to fix it, don't to open it eventually.
> :
>
> this isn't correct. Every service had some security prob
On 22/10/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:42:18 +0200 "Inigo T. A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: El dom, 22-10-2006 a las 12:40 +0200, Steffen Wendzel escribis:
: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:57:39 -0400 "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:
: > :
: > : So
Hi,
On Oct 22, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Steffen Wendzel wrote:
this isn't correct. Every service had some security problems in the
past. Imagin that your service X is vulnerable (only since a few h
by a zero day exploit or so) and someone tries to exploit it at
2:00 in
the morning.
but if you run
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 04:41:17PM +0200, Steffen Wendzel wrote:
>
> this isn't correct. Every service had some security problems in the
> past. Imagin that your service X is vulnerable (only since a few h
> by a zero day exploit or so) and someone tries to exploit it at 2:00 in
> the morning.
>
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:42:18 +0200 "Inigo T. A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: El dom, 22-10-2006 a las 12:40 +0200, Steffen Wendzel escribis:
: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:57:39 -0400 "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:
: > :
: > : So this is like an insecure version of SSH?
: >
: > it h
El dom, 22-10-2006 a las 12:40 +0200, Steffen Wendzel escribis:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:57:39 -0400 "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : So this is like an insecure version of SSH?
>
> it has nothing todo with SSH. And of course it isn't very secure
> BUT it adds security where no
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:55:39AM -0700, Kian Mohageri wrote:
> On 10/22/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You normaly have different open ports
>
>
>
> pf(4) makes this a minor issue. No offense, but what you have there (in the
> example specifically) is no better tha
On 10/22/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You normaly have different open ports
pf(4) makes this a minor issue. No offense, but what you have there (in the
example specifically) is no better than a "limited" (if you consider ability
to reboot or kill ssh "limited") version o
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:57:39 -0400 "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 10/21/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > hi,
: >
: > I wrote a new tool I call OpenPortd for my linux distribution
: > but since I my linux distribution is still under development
: > and I want to r
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Nick Guenther wrote:
On 10/21/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
40tg340503n5 pf/iptables (load some other rules or whatever)
So this is like an insecure version of SSH?
If you configure it to behave like that, probably.
But if you configure it to open a po
On 10/21/06, Steffen Wendzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,
I wrote a new tool I call OpenPortd for my linux distribution
but since I my linux distribution is still under development
and I want to release the tool, I wrote an OpenBSD version
too, you maybe like it.
[...]
You can define keys and
13 matches
Mail list logo
