vonskippy wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
The benefits of running ssh on port 22 far outweigh that minor annoyance
That's YOUR opinion.
I never run SSH on TCP22, way to many botscripts picking away there (and yes, I only use certs for SSH so it isn't really a security risk).
Nor do I need to waste MY bandwidth on those scriptkiddies.
I see NO benefit from running on TCP22, unless of course you like sifting thru logs and wasting clock cycles and bits (or of course if you're running a Honeypot).
The benefit is not having to type
Code:
ssh -p ...
for the rest of your life, and being the only guy at that conference that can't log into his box through the provided wifi because you're running ssh on some obscure port to solve a non-issue.
According to my quick measurements 3 failed ssh login attempts cost me around 5000 bytes. For the 1600 failed login attempts that I've had this week that works out to 8.2 MB. Which is nothing.
I *don't* have to sift through my ssh logs because *I know* that those silly script kiddies don't pose a threat to me.
I only allow logins with public keys, and even if I didn't I ban them with fail2ban after 6 failed attempts. Unless my passwords something silly like "foobar" they'd need to be pretty damn lucky to brute force the username/password pairs if I'm dropping their connections for 30 mins after 6 failed attempts.