|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 10/22/07 19:51
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 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?
Indeed. Which is the whole pint I'm trying to make
Sigh.
>
> 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.
>
If I knew whch sites you monitored I'd make it my business to hack at
them as hard as I could.
Its your winning personality that does it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|