• corship@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Obfuscation is not security, changing the port doesn’t increase your security

    • boatswain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I see this claim all the time, and it bugs me every time. Obfuscation is a perfectly reasonable part of a defense in depth solution. That’s why you configure your error messages on production systems to give very generic error messages instead of the dev-centric messages with stack traces on lower environments, for example.

      The problem comes when obscurity is your only defense. It’s not a full remediation on its own, but it has a part in defense in depth.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Changing the port isn’t really much obfuscation though. It doesn’t take long to scan all ports for the entire IPv4 range (see masscan)

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It helps against stupid automated attacks though.

          If someone has changed the port it’s likely that they have set up a great password or disabled password auth all together.

          It’s worth it for just having cleaner logs and fewer attempts.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s worth it for just having cleaner logs

            Those logs are useful to know which IPs to permanently block :)

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hear you, but I disagree:

      It buys you enough time to check the journals and see that a group of IPs have attempted various ports giving you enough time to block the IP altogether.

      It also buys you disinterest from the malicious host, since probably there’s a hard limit on how many ports they will test, and they will flag your machine as “too much work” and try another.

      Again, I agree with you that obfuscation is not security, but it sure does help.

      • corship@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        From what I understand you obfuscate the port in order to limit the amount of incoming attacks. But then fail2ban would be a much more effective tool.

        The disinterested aspect you described is the actual problem. Because it’s based on the assumption your port won’t be found, but it definitely will, and as soon as that happens you’ll end up in a database such as shodan and the entire effect is GONE.