Bluehost.com Web Hosting $6.95

Re: Running stealth servers

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. ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > System Security and Security Related > IPFilter

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2005
John Kaitschuck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Running stealth servers

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.




Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0