0

The sshd.config and fail2ban both work by blocking authentication requests over a specified path, thus notifying the attacker about the protection measures in place.

Wouldn't it be more desirable to not give any information to the attacker?

  • SSH: Still prompt for a password, despite only key authentication is allowed and just return 'wrong password' without giving it a look?
  • Fail2Ban: After n failed login attempts, reroute the attacker's traffic to a process on a different port, which from then on returns a static 'login failed' response to the attacker, indistinguishable from the servers response for wrong passwords.

Is my thought flawed? Is it possible to configure sshd or fail2ban the depicted way?

  • 2
    What do you want to achieve with that? – techraf Aug 13 '16 at 15:38
  • Giving the attacker a wrong picture of his target, from which he might derive a different approach for tackling the server. Maybe that is even counterproductive as he might now pray even more on me, as he thinks I am easy to own. :) But the same can be argued about the sense of putting a routers firewall into stealth mode or just response with 'port closed', right? – Senkaku Aug 13 '16 at 15:46
  • Something is wrong in your plan. In order for sshd to give out a password error, it would only make sense if it did indeed request a password. Also, there's no need to keep traffic coming from an attacker to a different port. When you identify that the IP is a threat, you simply drop the packets. – Julie Pelletier Aug 13 '16 at 16:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.