tcpwrappers & SSH
e.schuele at computer.org
Wed Oct 25 18:58:40 UTC 2006
On 10/25/06 09:56, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:08:26 +0400 ????? ???????
> <rihad at mail.ru> wrote:
>> A comment in /etc/hosts.allow states that:
>> Wrapping sshd(8) is not normally a good idea
>> Why? Is it because such restrictions should naturally be made using a
>> firewall/PAM/sshd itself/whatever? I think GENERIC sshd wouldn't have
>> been built with libwrap support in the first place. Or?
> Because maintaining the access list can be quite ponderous if you have a
> lot of users.
> I maintain a hobby website that only has two shell accounts. I use
> hosts.allow for ssh because it gets rid of the brute-force crap. But
> even for two users, the list of hosts/networks that are allowed is 10 or
> 15. Imagine what it would be if you have a hundred users...or a thousand.
Viewed from a slightly different angle...
If you are responsible for maintaining machine xyz, and you have used
tcpwrappers... chances are you'll eventually need access to that machine
from a location you did not previously expect. Maybe your sitting in
the airport and get a call that the machine is malfunctioning. Maybe
you are on call at a social gathering. In any case, you'll need access
and if it is using tcpwrappers, you may not gain access.
IMHO, other than the problem with needing "emergency" access, I think
tcpwrappers is a good thing. I use then on my laptop for example. As
Paul mentions, it gets rid of the constant hammering you would normally
be subject to, and I can still access it from the office or home.
> Paul Schmehl (pauls at utdallas.edu)
> Senior Information Security Analyst
> The University of Texas at Dallas
More information about the freebsd-questions