|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 10/22/07 12:20
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ffgar8$3n6$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:42:39 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah -but if you obscure the door well, you don't have to worry
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> locking it.
>>>>>> Not true at all. Comparing it to hacking, someone tries everything
>>>>>> whether or not it looks like a knob until something opens. Locking
>>>>>> the door would prevent that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No - locking the door only slows them down after an attack has begun.
>>>>> If you want to PREVENT the attack - obscure the target.
>>>>> You can't hit what you can't see.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can. It's harder, but not at all impossible.
>>>>
>>> You wont even try to hit something you don't know is there.
>>>
>>
>> Hackers don't care if it's there or not. They'll so a systematic scan
>> just to see if something's there. It doesn't cost them anything.
>>
> Ah, but a scan of what?
>
> I accidentally left a machine with an open global telnet up - for about
> 2 weeks.
>
> No one hacked it. Its firewalled correctly now..
>
>
So? No one attempted to hack it in two weeks. What does that prove?
Maybe they weren't worth hacking?
Some of the sites I monitor have had over 500 attempts per day to access
various ports. Telnet wasn't one of them because it's not active. But
there are many other ports which could be active. I finally had to take
additional steps to secure the systems.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|