From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:28:31 -0600 From: Virtual Sky In-reply-to: <20100302211126.GW18182@osdn.org.ua> To: "ALT Linux users (in English only)" Message-id: <4B8D9F1F.7060507@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4B8C7278.2060404@gmail.com> <20100302073437.GR18182@osdn.org.ua> <1267516014.24688.14.camel@latitude.arlan> <5d2de3011003020934o322e4139o6fb63079c9f61fd4@mail.gmail.com> <20100302211126.GW18182@osdn.org.ua> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090910 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-03-02_13:2010-02-06, 2010-03-02, 2010-03-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003020250 Subject: Re: [Comm-en] ALT Server 4.0 - Preventing Root Log-ins X-BeenThere: community-en@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: virtualsky.sk@gmail.com, "ALT Linux users \(in English only\)" List-Id: "ALT Linux users \(in English only\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:30:28 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:34:01AM -0600, Virtual Sky Solutions wrote: > >> Now, I'm not an expert on Apache or other such things - I just >> know enough to work my way around basic configurations. >> However, thinking about it some more, would I be correct in >> saying: I could help prevent unwanted hacking of my server by >> changing the web configurator access port, from 8080 to another >> unused port? >> > Somewhat yes, since 8080 is well known http-related port; > but moreso with firewall setup blocking access to this or > another configured port by default and allowing it from a > few select IPs. > > If feeling adventurous, you could also look into "knock" > package to employ so called port knocking technique on top > of "deny by default" firewall policy for web interface. > > Ah, yes... port "knocking". I forgot all about that. I'll look in to it for sure. Thanks for the suggestion! David.