Re: Customer-facing ACLs

From: Justin Shore (no email)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2008 - 18:56:42 EDT

  • Next message: Bill Woodcock: "Re: NANOG laptops (was Re: Customer-facing ACLs)"

    Dave Pooser wrote:
    >> I can understand the logic of dropping the port, but theres some
    >> additional thought involved when looking at Port 22 - maybe i'm not
    >> well-read enough, but the bots I've seen that are doing SSH scans, etc,
    >> are not usually on Windows systems. I can figure them working on Linux,
    >> MacOS systems - but surely the vast majority of 'vulnerable' hosts are
    >> those running OS's coming from our favourite megacorp? Which typically
    >> don't come shipped with neither SSH server nor SSH client... ?
    >
    > They typically don't ship with an SMTP server either. Considering that my
    > preferred SSH client for Windows weighs in as a single 412k .exe, I'd
    > imagine that bot designers are just writing their own SSH clients for
    > brute-forcing.

    Or are simply writing a bot that sens TCP SYNs to port 22 and are
    reporting those hosts that responds with a SYN ACK back to the C&C.
    Then the C&C can direct other compromised hosts with a more complete
    rootkit (or compromised *nix host) to do brute-force userid/password
    guessing.

    > Half the Mac users? You think? I know a dozen or so sysadmins who use Macs,
    > and about a hundred users who wouldn't know SSH from PCP; I think that's
    > probably a slightly skewed sample considering I'm a Mac geek who hangs
    > around with Mac geeks, and I'd guess the consumer users are a larger
    > percentage of the real-life population. I'd expect the number of folks who
    > want SSH unblocked to be under 1% of a consumer broadband network, and
    > probably closer to 0.1% or so. And again, it ought to be trivial to let your
    > users unblock the system, either via phone call or via self-service Web page
    > (though in the latter case you'd better use a captcha or something so the
    > bot doesn't automatically unblock itself).

    Agreed. I don't think the end-user's OS makes them more or less likely
    to be using SSH unless the OS is a BSD or Linux (then I suspect you'd
    get a disproportionate # of SSH users compared to the other more simple
    OSs).

    Justin


  • Next message: Bill Woodcock: "Re: NANOG laptops (was Re: Customer-facing ACLs)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD