On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:46 -0600, Chris Carey wrote: > On 4/12/06, Chris Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree wholeheartedly. What I meant is that its futile to block > > individual IPs. For every one you block, two more will appear. For an > > Internet connected device, one should put a policy for security in > > place that covers all IPs. > > > > Chris Carey > > > > I want to make sure my comment is not taken out of of context. The way > you snipped it makes it appear as if I was making a blanket "forget > about it" approach to security in general. It was in response to > setting up blacklists for IPs attempting to connect to the SSH port. > > Chris Carey
First: Trim your responses! I don't care if you're using gmail, many of
us aren't and we resent having to scroll forever to get to your
response. Show a little consideration.
Second: Temporarily blacklisting IPs that are making repeated attempts
is not futile. It conserves system resources because you can skip
creation of a connection, generation of a key, authentication, etc. That
said, I would periodically expire entries to keep the rule size from
getting too big.
Third: I have no idea who you're responding to, you seem to to be
responding to yourself. You accuse yourself of unfair snipping, yet you
didn't snip anything... I know you don't like the way the meds make you
feel, but they're for your own good. Really.
--
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
google talk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at
the results." -- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
