Stop it right now. It does not help your threat environment. It just makes things worse.

  • Laser@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I don’t really agree with the video for a number of points though I’d say that changing the port is not a security, but a convenience feature.

    Privileged port is probably the best argument, however the attack mentioned here would only work for users not having connected to the host before, as otherwise you’d get a host key check failure. The host key wouldn’t be readable by an attacker in the case mentioned, and you wouldn’t be able to steal passwords if the user has a key authentication only.

    Only allowing certain IPs won’t work in a lot of non-commercial environments, and fail2ban can be used for DOSing the server as the attacker can spoof the sending IP to a legitimate one, denying access.

    • vortex@fed.dyne.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Privileged port is a trust belief system where you believe that the remote system only offers services below port 1024 if they were started with elevated privilege. Author PK Dick once said reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

    • vortex@fed.dyne.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I posit that the point of the video is that port changing is an inconvenience non-feature, especially at scale of distributed legitimate use.