Over and over (I've even done it myself until a very recent post) I see folk asking for help and and substituting pseudo-generics for actual internal configuration information. Obviously, their interest is internal security. I agree that helping such a person isn't a problem if their substitutions are CONSISTENT between posts - but that largely isn't the case.
I guess my actual question becomes: How vulnerable do you become by releasing your internal network specs {here} that might help solve the initial problem? I'd always assumed, for instance, that 198.n.n.n packets couldn't travel the Internet so if "anyone" knew my internal I.P.s it didn't matter.
Thank you,
jje
Internal settings obfuscation - Dear Admins!
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: 2014/05/21 20:16:00
- Location: Central New York, USA
Re: Internal settings obfuscation - Dear Admins!
Passwords should be changed. Some IP addresses might need to be changed (if they're public facing and not in a public service like DNS). There are so many mapping tools available now, that most internal details would be exposed once an infiltrator is through to that layer. Generally my view is that security through obsecurity does not work.
So yeah, I think there's limited value in it.
So yeah, I think there's limited value in it.
- AlanBartlett
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 9345
- Joined: 2007/10/22 11:30:09
- Location: ~/Earth/UK/England/Suffolk
- Contact:
Re: Internal settings obfuscation - Dear Admins!
I'm assuming that you really meant either 192.n.n.n or 192.168.n.n.lightman47 wrote:I'd always assumed, for instance, that 198.n.n.n packets couldn't travel the Internet . . .
Yes, consistency by the OP across all the posts in a thread would be sensible.
100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.
-
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: 2014/05/21 20:16:00
- Location: Central New York, USA