SSH hank attempts bad?

Stuart Jansen sjansen at
Wed Apr 12 11:04:27 MDT 2006

On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:46 -0600, Chris Carey wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Chris Carey <chris.carey at> wrote:
> > I agree wholeheartedly. What I meant is that its futile to block
> > individual IPs. For every one you block, two more will appear. For an
> > Internet connected device, one should put a policy for security in
> > place that covers all IPs.
> >
> > Chris Carey
> >
> I want to make sure my comment is not taken out of of context. The way
> you snipped it makes it appear as if I was making a blanket "forget
> about it" approach to security in general. It was in response to
> setting up blacklists for IPs attempting to connect to the SSH port.
> Chris Carey

First: Trim your responses! I don't care if you're using gmail, many of
us aren't and we resent having to scroll forever to get to your
response. Show a little consideration.

Second: Temporarily blacklisting IPs that are making repeated attempts
is not futile. It conserves system resources because you can skip
creation of a connection, generation of a key, authentication, etc. That
said, I would periodically expire entries to keep the rule size from
getting too big.

Third: I have no idea who you're responding to, you seem to to be
responding to yourself. You accuse yourself of unfair snipping, yet you
didn't snip anything... I know you don't like the way the meds make you
feel, but they're for your own good. Really.

Stuart Jansen              e-mail/jabber: sjansen at
                           google talk:   stuart.jansen at

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at 
the results." -- Winston Churchill
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the PLUG mailing list