mailing list archives
Re: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities?
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <bugtraq () planetcobalt net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:29:10 +0100
On 2007-12-31 Jay wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:28:53 +0100 Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
On 2007-12-28 Jay wrote:
Portknocking is a security mechanism as it is a type of
authentication. "Something you know" in this case the sequence of
ports to knock before a unstarted service or daemon begins listening
Since everything is transmitted in the clear port-knocking is as much
of a security mechanism as cleartext passwords. Technically: maybe
(depending on your definition). Realistically: no.
Is portknocking a weaker security mechanism. Does that discount it
Telnet and ftp our clear text. Just because something can be defeated
doesn't mean it loses 'all' its classification
Does anyone out there actually consider telnet or FTP to be even
remotely secure? No? Then what makes you think you have a point here?
A door is meant to provide some defense to the outside of your house.
I can certainly bash it in with a sledge hammer. It still serves its
purpose as a layer of the defense.
Bad analogies can't replace actual arguments.
Again we are talking about security basics here. You can say it isn't
viable or is inherently weak. But the way it is implemented its used
for authentication. Plain and simple.
However, depending on how the authentication mechanism is designed and
implemented it may or may not count as a security measure. Plain and
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
RE: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities? Jay (Dec 31)
Re: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities? Jay (Dec 31)
- RE: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities?, (continued)