Timeline for Does it improve security to use obscure port numbers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2018 at 18:14 | comment | added | goteguru | If you are using hardware keys, using non standard ports is just a security theater. An attacker who has any chance to break a hardware key would identify your real ssh port in no time anyway. Actually, a much much lower level attacker could do this easily. | |
| Jul 17, 2018 at 15:52 | comment | added | Luc | @WilliamRosenbloom Given all that, you clearly already defend against basic attacks. Anyone who is capable of getting past your hardware auth keys would also be able to find that alternative port... so I think Sayan's post still stands: "use the default port and deploy [multiple layers of] security" as you have done. | |
| Jul 17, 2018 at 2:08 | comment | added | William Rosenbloom | We don't rely on the obscurity. We have many other security measures, including hardware authentication keys. The obscure ports are just an extra layer on top of conventional security. Knowing that, would you still recommend to use the default port 22? Is there any reason other than administrative overhead? | |
| Jul 17, 2018 at 1:27 | history | answered | Sayan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |