Lug-nuts April 2023

lug-nuts@bigbrie.com

2 participants
2 discussions

[gary@garymcglinn.com: Re: Re: Snort]
by saclug＠garymcglinn.com 14 Sep '23

14 Sep '23

Again sent earlier. Thanks for the intervening comments about vulnerabiliteis and versions. A lot of issues and suggestions have been made and raised. My brief response is that yes, according to nmap and my intention I had port 23, for ssh (I moved it) and port 5900 open and the rpc port, I think. I'm going by memory. Theoretically the only pinhole in the ISP router firewall was port 23. To use port 5900, you had to use an ssh tunnel. My web server is on another machine. Since I only use it for development, I don't leave it up. My actual web pages are hosted externally on a vendor's box. My experience with the upgrade treadmill is that it is a waste of time. By its own admission (if a concept can have that) the new versions will have issues and you need to upgrade. If the issues with an older version don't affect you, then it is perfectly fine to use it. Why upgrade and risk the fact that the new issues will affect your use case. The developers for Fedora 13 were no smarter or dumber than the developers who are writing Fedora 36. Or pick your distro of choice. The issue with an older release is that nifty new things come out and you can't really use them. But, if you run a VM with a recent version of the distro, you can use them just fine. The other issues is that if you are getting vendor support, they can only reasonably commit to supporting a limited number of versions. This is AMD hardware from '06. -Gary On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 06:19:54PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Brian E. Lavender (brian(a)brie.com): > > > Gary, > > > > You were running Fedora 13? > > If so, _that_ is likely a big problem. Fedora 13's initial release was > May 25, 2010, and it was EOLed on June 24, 2011. > > Because Fedora. If you don't want to keep moving to newer versions, > it's about the worst possible distro. (But it's possible Gary meant > that he did _original_ installation 15 years ago, but has been following > the recommended upgrade treadmill^W path. > > Linus Sphinx wrote: > > > https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-linux-malware-brute-forc… > > You know, I have a _lot_ of things to be grateful for, and somewhere on > the list is the glad tidings that I don't need to rely on > Bleepingcomputer.com for IT information. > > Over the past 1.5 months since its discovery, the new botnet used > over 3,500 unique IPs worldwide to scan and attempt brute-forcing Linux > SSH servers. > [...] > The SSH brute-forcing relies on a list of credentials downloaded from > the [command and control server]. [...] > > *snore* > > So, doorknob-twisting for "joe accounts", like user=service > password=manager and like that. > > Guestimate the math, and measure the lengthly setup and teardown times > for remote connections to an sshd, and you'll find that > dictionary-attacking an sshd with any reasonable rules set about > password quality and length is going to take an appreciable fraction of > the time to the heat death of the universe, to succeed. > > I mentioned upthread that a lot of IT device comes from gadget freaks. > The _other_ common problem is that most security _articles_ are > copied-pasted press releases from security/antimalware firms. > So, they're big on shockhorror, and small on conveying understanding. > > I've only quick-glanced at this article about enforcing password policy > via PAM, so won't swear to it being a good one: > https://www.techrepublic.com/article/controlling-passwords-with-pam/ > Of course, if you're the -only- user, you ought to stick to decent > passwords without PAM forcing you to. (Also, a user who can su to > root has the power to overrule PAM. But if you do that, you have only > yourself to blame for consequences.) > > _______________________________________________ > Lug-nuts mailing list -- lug-nuts(a)bigbrie.com > To unsubscribe send an email to lug-nuts-leave(a)bigbrie.com ----- End forwarded message -----

6 12

TLS
by Chris Miller 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

Hi Folks, If I am on a Windows workstation and I RDP to another Windows machine, then I have no problem. If I am on a Fedora workstation, then the RDP session fails with complaints about TLS. This raises the question, how is the Fedora workstation is supposed to be configured to participate in TLS authentication/encryption, and why is it not, and what do I do about it? How can this be tested? -- Chris. V:916.799.9461 F:916.974.0428 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: > Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

Lug-nuts April 2023