Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #175451 > unrolled thread

ssh doesn't work.

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 05:40 +0100
    Re: ssh doesn't work. Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2016-12-06 07:30 +0100
      Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 16:30 +0100
        Re: ssh doesn't work. Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-12-07 17:00 +0100
          Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:40 +0100
            Re: ssh doesn't work. Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-07 19:00 +0100
              Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 05:20 +0100
            Re: ssh doesn't work. Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-12-07 19:20 +0100
              Re: ssh doesn't work. Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-07 19:50 +0100
                Re: ssh doesn't work. Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-12-07 20:20 +0100
                Re: ssh doesn't work. Antti Talsta <atalsta@nothingtosee.org> - 2016-12-07 20:30 +0100
                  Re: ssh doesn't work. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 21:30 +0100
                    Re: ssh doesn't work. Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-12-07 21:50 +0100
                      Re: ssh doesn't work. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 23:20 +0100
                        Re: ssh doesn't work. Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 16:40 +0100
                          Re: ssh doesn't work. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 18:00 +0100
                    Re: ssh doesn't work. Antti Talsta <atalsta@nothingtosee.org> - 2016-12-07 21:50 +0100
                      Re: ssh doesn't work. Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 23:20 +0100
                Re: ssh doesn't work. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-12-07 21:30 +0100
                  Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 05:20 +0100
                    Re: ssh doesn't work. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 11:10 +0100
                      Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 06:00 +0100
                        Re: ssh doesn't work. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-10 10:10 +0100
                          Re: ssh doesn't work. Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-12-11 08:40 +0100
              Re: ssh doesn't work. EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 06:50 +0100
                Re: ssh doesn't work. emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 09:00 +0100
                  Re: ssh doesn't work. Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-12-08 13:50 +0100
            Re: ssh doesn't work. emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 20:20 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#175545

On Thursday 08 December 2016 04:19:00 EenyMeenyMinyMoa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2016-12-08 5:25 GMT+09:00 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>:
> > Random script kiddy attacks are of absolutely no consequence. Annoying
> > perhaps, but no threat whatsoever. In terms of security, changing the
> > port number for ssh does bugger all.
>
> What security risk can changing the port number for ssh cause?

If it does bugger all, it isn't a security risk either.  "Does bugger all" 
means that it doesn't do anything whatsoever, so I take it to mean (possibly 
erroneously) that: changing the port number does not create a security risk, 
but neither does it improve security.  It just introduces unnecessary further 
complication.

Not everyone agrees with Brian (I know far too little about it to have an 
opinion, but tend to listen to Brian) but I think that is what he is saying.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175597

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

2016-12-08 19:04 GMT+09:00 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday 08 December 2016 04:19:00 EenyMeenyMinyMoa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2016-12-08 5:25 GMT+09:00 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>:
>>> Random script kiddy attacks are of absolutely no consequence. Annoying
>>> perhaps, but no threat whatsoever. In terms of security, changing the
>>> port number for ssh does bugger all.
>>
>> What security risk can changing the port number for ssh cause?
>
> If it does bugger all, it isn't a security risk either.  "Does bugger all"
> means that it doesn't do anything whatsoever, so I take it to mean
(possibly
> erroneously) that: changing the port number does not create a security
risk,
> but neither does it improve security.  It just introduces unnecessary
further
> complication.

I see.
I thought the meaning of "bugger" as "wreck".
There are one word of which I couldn't get the meaning in the last email of
Henning. But I'll put it aside.

For safer security(at least I guess), I changed the permissions of
  authorized_keys
  id_rsa_for_test.pub
  known_hosts
into 600.
This time in the manner:
  one change, test, succeed, and then next...
I could also login by ssh without password.

Cheers,
EenyMeenyMinyMoa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175599

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:54:56 +0900
EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> wrote:


> I see.
> I thought the meaning of "bugger" as "wreck".


Pretty much any rude word, together with 'all', means 'nothing' in an
emphatic but not polite way, as in 'sod all' and  'f*** all'.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175611

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 10/12/16 22:01, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:54:56 +0900
> EenyMeenyMinyMoa <eenymeenyminymoa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I see.
>> I thought the meaning of "bugger" as "wreck".
> 
> 
> Pretty much any rude word, together with 'all', means 'nothing' in an
> emphatic but not polite way, as in 'sod all' and  'f*** all'.
> 

I'd interpret or use it as "almost nothing", but otherwise yeah. There's
bugger all difference, but it might be significant sometimes :-)

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175542

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

2016-12-08 1:07 GMT+09:00 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com>:
>> > Thank you for your reply, Andy.
>> >
> Please be so nice and trim your post to be meaningful and concise. Don't
> just slapp something on the top.

2016-12-08 3:23 GMT+09:00 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com>:
>> Thank you for the quick response, Henning.
>> >
> Sorry, you have to stop this. Now!

I thought that to be a basic manner as the original questioner.
Why do you think isn't that good?
Everybody else, how do you think?

Cheers,
EenyMeenyMinyMoa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175544

> > Sorry, you have to stop this. Now!
> 
> I thought that to be a basic manner as the original questioner.
> Why do you think isn't that good?
> Everybody else, how do you think?

he's saying don't change 4 things at once.  

change one, test
change another, test
....

that's how you trouble shoot.  then you know what steps you have to take to make things work the next time around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175554

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:35:36PM -0800, emetib wrote:
> > > Sorry, you have to stop this. Now!
> > 
> > I thought that to be a basic manner as the original questioner.
> > Why do you think isn't that good?
> > Everybody else, how do you think?
> 
> he's saying don't change 4 things at once.  
> 

I am going further than that. Don't change anything at all!
Not for a long time!
Based on this thread the OP is making everything too complicated by trying
to be clever. I bet his front door knob turns the other way to confuse
burglars and evrytime he comes home from the pub all pissed he goes: "Ahh
balls...".


-H 


-- 
Henning Follmann           | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175523

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:40:04 AM UTC-6, EenyMeenyMinyMoa wrote:
> 
> $ ls -ls /home/testac/.ssh
> total 12
> 4 -rwx------ 1 u1 u1 776 Dec  8 11:05 authorized_keys
> 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 u1 u1 388 Dec  6 11:57 id_rsa_test.pub
> 4 -rwx------ 1 u1 u1 444 Dec  6 20:46 known_hosts
> 
check the perms on ~/.ssh
should be 700, dwrx------

and your authorized_keys should be 644, -rw-r--r--

and then try again

good luck 
em

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web