This is a discussion on Re: Running stealth servers within the IPFilter forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; David Kirkby wrote: > A friend is looking to remotely administer a UNIX box from anywhere in > the world. ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
David Kirkby wrote:
> A friend is looking to remotely administer a UNIX box from anywhere in > the world. Webmin attracts him, but I'm not over keen on the idea of > having a program like that which runs as root open to the whole world. > It must be quite atractive to hackers if they find webmin running. > > After thinking about it, I had this idea; How about making a stealth > firewall with ipfilter, that ignores all attempts to connect. The > firewall logs denied packets to a log file. The log file is parsed by > a program which will open the port used by webmin (say 54321) if and > only if: > > a) Someone tries to connect to port 1000 > b) From the same IP next tried to connect to port 13233 > c) From the same IP next tries to connect to port 3244 > > (or any other random combination of ports). Then and only then the > firewall is opened to the port with webmin running (54321). > > So in order to access webmin, you would from your browser try: > > http://www.somsite.com:1000 // ignored > http://www.somsite.com:13233 //ignored > http://www.somsite.com:3244 // now causes port 54321 to be opened > > (telnet, https or similar at those ports would all work too). > > and finally having detected the access to ports 1000, 13233, 3244 (in > that order), with the firewall now opening port 54321, one would > administer the site with: > > https://www.somsite.com:54321 > > The probability of a hacker randomly scanning ports 1000, 13233, 3244 > (in that order), then trying to connect to port 54321 must be very > small indeed. > > Thoughts? Have you considered "port knocking", which is similar to what your describing. |