I was always thought it was good practice to run sshd on a non-standard port. Its really easy to do and it can make it harder for prying eyes to get any smart ideas, and if you put it on a port standard on most windows boxes (or any other OS) it can causes problems with port scanners, giving incorrect OSes and such. Its not like apache where random people will be connecting to port 80 to load your webpage, probably only people connecting to sshd should already know that it is on a non-standard port, so your not losing hits.
-- D On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:54, Adam J. Melancon wrote: > I guess as long as they don't start blocking ssh we'll be ok. > It sure does suck that I won't be able to run my personal website when I > move into my new house on the cable modem like I used to . I have been off > of broadband due to where I currently live for the past 10 months. The only > thing I miss using it for is access to storage on my home server, and being > able to remotly administer the computers at work using vnc without it taking > forever to refresh. > > I remember when we first got cable modems in abbeville back in either 99 or > 2000. I can remember how it used to be setup with everyone's hostname was > their computer name and could be browsed by network neighborhood. It was > the wild west when cable modems were first rolled out. > > > > Adam J. Melancon > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Brad N Bendily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [brlug-general] Cox and smtp pain today. > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:29:03 -0500 (CDT) > > > They also block port 21 even though they don't admit it. > The link worked BTW. > > -- > Brad Bendily - CNA > > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Adam J. Melancon wrote: > > > Has anyone seen this link with all the ports that cox blocks? > > > > > http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/progsnp/cox_isp/srchjnnp?search_type=vdocument&search_input=1570&session_id=1038942585.8133.7&search_erproduct=&question=ports+blocked > > > > I hope this link works. ;) > > > > > > > > Adam J. Melancon > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: will hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: GPG does not provide "end to end encryption", but only mail > > conte nt encryption was RE: [brlug-general] Cox and smtp pain today. > > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:31:05 -0500 > > > > On 2003.06.17 09:48 John Hebert wrote: > > > Ray, > > > > > > Just to be technically clear and correct for those who may not know, > GPG > > > does not provide end to end mail encryption, but only mail content > > > encryption. Even if you use GPG to encrypt the contents of your mail > > > message, it is possible for people (mail sysadmins, bad guys sniffing, > > etc.) > > > to see the message headers (mail recipient's address, etc.). > > > > That and it stands out like a sore thumb when you only take the trouble > to > > encrypt 1% of your mail. > > > > > > > > But, as others have pointed out, TLS only encrypts the connections to > the > > > mail server. Anyone with access to your mail spool can read your > > unencrypted > > > email content. TLS is only a partial security solution and requires > the > > user > > > to trust the mail server admin. > > > > Let's see, the only person with access to the mail spooler on my computer > is > > ... me. If everyone ran their own mail and had TLS, everyone would have > end > > to end encryption. Sure, admins here and there could see who I emailed, > but > > that' not as important as them not getting at what I'm up to when I don't > > want them to know. > > > > Some people don't think that's possible or practical. They are correct > only > > when they confine themselves to Microsoft and dial up limits. Cable now > > reaches the majority of US homes. There's no reason everyone could not > have > > an always on connection with a fixed IP address. Free software is secure > > and has default settings that make mail work without much effort on the > > user's part. Oh yeah, a computer running free software is just as or > more > > reliable than the dinky little computer that runs the cable modem itself. > > The only trouble with mail I've had has been from Cox being bullied into > > making their cable service look and act like a dial up service. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want true message security, don't use email at all. Anyone > know > > of > > > a good alternative? Are there any free|OSS encrypted IM apps out > there? > > > > > > > That is the big problem here. If you can't trust that your email is > > private, email loses much of it's value. > > > > I like the idea of substituting an IM program for an email program =;) > It > > kinda shows how email could be done. Why is it that people think that > it's > > OK to have these IM programs but not email? Why is it that people think > you > > can secure IM but not email? Why do people think that you need a relay > for > > mail but not IM? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
