On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:06:14 +1000 Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote: > Hiding the information does nothing for you because the script that > you see as "scanning" is much more likely to be attempting to break in > automatically, not just guessing what might be worth attacking. So, let's say only 0.05% of script kiddie scripts scan for versions instead of an outright attempt at breaking in. That's still 0.05%. It only takes one script kiddie to compromise a network. When you're working in a high-security environment where some computers *must* be accessible, we have to worry about individuals. Not trends, not percentages. If doing something will stop a *single* possible intrusion, it's done. (Within the limits of time budgets, of course. The fellow who started this thread obviously cares enough and has the time to take rather extraordinary precautions[for a home user, fairly standard stuff in high-security environments], so saying "don't bother" really isn't a valid answer :) I'm not going to mention any names of any places I've worked unless I'm asked, because I consider that in bad taste. But this is how it works. -- ________________________________________________________________________ \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / eelf@sympatico.ca, elf@terrabox.com | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \======================================================================/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachment:
pgpxY1hJcWwJU.pgp
Description: PGP signature