-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 2009-10-03 at 20:19 +0200, Matthias Bach wrote:
Am Samstag 03 Oktober 2009 18:56:23 schrieb Per Jessen:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Saturday, 2009-10-03 at 18:36 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Yeah, I have similar rules on all of my systems, but like I said, this attack appears to be specifically designed to circumvent that type of protection.
The defense would have to be collaborative. Machines being attacked would have to report the IPs the attacks seem to come from to a central server, which would distribute the data to the protected "clients", who would then block the entire list.
Yeah, it's a possibility, but it's certainly a lot less effort to use challenge-response or an alternate port.
Something like that already exists in denyhosts.
Not as a collaborative, dynamic, effort? The bad guys collaborate somehow to attack us. To defend ourselves we have to join forces against them. But it probably needs some organization or business to provide the development effort, servers, and authentication. Ie, a server to list bots and block them. And probably inform the police, and a real effort by the authorities to go against them. Even fines against the owners of the botted machines, for not taking the appropriate precautions. Same as a car owner has some responsibilities, the owner of a machine connected to Internet must be responsible for it. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrHrxUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VMTgCfSS+Vm2n/DC2E9lTftx3LAEfd CfoAn10a/PldFlBH2hAVKD3OC1expJv5 =umeG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org