This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

Re:Author is dead-on

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 12, 2004 12:03 PM
The author of the article was surely talking about a "successful total compromise of system." It's not me who is confusing the two. I'm not basing this on some half-baked notion, but on the actual sentences used in the article.

As a justifying quote:
"those odds are worthwhile to the attacker, considering that the cost of the attack is far smaller than the expected gains from a successful attack"

Also, immediately following that:
"This kind of technique is quite common in port scanning -- crackers use multiple automated methods, each of which has only a small probability of success, but which taken together prove very effective."

What the author is implying here is that, If you successfully attack the port knocking layer, you *have* compromised the whole system.

If I'm wrong about this, then it's the fault of the phrasing being employed - which makes the intended meaning unclear (and, I would argue, incorrect).


Return to A critique of port knocking