SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] ssh questions
- To: "SLUG List" <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] ssh questions
- From: "Amos Shapira" <amos.shapira@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:33:34 +1000
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=id5OhTKnm3zwMKerGoaLWXNJxWQyLMBFur63rTXK0Zz+UN6VNuBgVQeRvOkwBvtGC6uLyGRV4i4VNSwM5cCZvn4ImOsBGGtWFaxiKm8uq9ZoPM4zM4TCENFvPLBC/uZ6GE4a7+lVf16Qp6ZQtsoVXzwDRQBcsr58E/reF/Lej50=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=G4yGTT8oNR5djhIzil480xMCox7CiMnNLYxwExtXctPTd2CZnAsrAb7Bj9f21l5NEO465xt6J4OMIRzEFg6emg6ptcVpYqPVWivaDzVEyz1wM564DgVwA8IA/IFrd7JIdVrfeEZIZWGAF3DWIwGhJBhFA8XX6FtqoCDQfHHO8FI=
On 05/06/07, Phil Scarratt <fil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Voytek Eymont wrote:
> my logs are littered with the usual failed login crap;
> is moving ssh to a different port 'good idea' ?
> preferabley some port that will still allow me access from various
> what port ? port range ?
yes, if only to save the crap in the logs. Any port above say 40000
I use non-standard ports under 1024 for both my ssh and apache service just
for that reason - haven't seen evidence of a single port scan on their logs
since I changed the ports few years ago, and I managed to connect to the
non-standard ports from anywere I tried.
Another option that you might want to consider to keep your mind at rest is
to forbid password-enabled log ins - instead you can force private/public
key for authentication.
(The web site isn't published anywere on the public internet, only via
private e-mails to people I more-or-less trust, otherwise it would make less
sense to move it).