Subj : Re: Stupid Sysops & Nonstandard Ports
To   : Andre
From : dragon
Date : Sun Apr 03 2022 17:01:04

Subject: Re: Stupid Sysops & Nonstandard Ports
@MSGID: <624A0B12.37345.dove-syncdisc@bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com>
@REPLY: <6249E69A.5590.dove-syncdisc@bbs.radiomentor.org>
@TZ: ff10
On 4/3/2022 2:25 PM, Andre wrote:
>> Here are some actual numbers for those that care about those things.
> 
>> There are 2332 current active entries in the IPTIA database.  Of these,
>> about 1050 are BBSes.  A little less than half of these (462) run on
>> nonstandard ports.
> 
> What does that matter? It just says how people have configured their BBS.
> 

It says that a significant number of sysops thought there was at least 
some value in it.

> You're missing any info about what the risks are, have any been breached, etc.
> I could easily make the opposite claims that most of these BBS have no regular
> users other than the sysop, which is caused by being on a nonstandard port. I
> have no data to support that, of course.

Or, they have small userbases because they are catering to a smaller, 
more tech-savvy crowd.

Preventing breeches is not the only reason to do this.  A constant 
barrage of door-rattling eats up resources and bloats log files.  The 
point is that it's an OPTION.

> 
> Point is that the first step in hardening is not changing to a nonstandard
> port. It's just not.
> 
> 
> - Andre
> 
> ---
>   � Synchronet � Radio Mentor BBS - bbs.radiomentor.org

I didn't say it was the first step or the only step.  I just said it is 
a POSSIBLE step that others have found worthwhile.  Why do you guys take 
this so personally?  I don't care if you use the standard port.  I'm not 
trying to change your minds.

In fact, I'm not trying to anything other then offer an OPTION to the 
original poster.  I really didn't expect to get into a long argument 
about it.

---
 þ Synchronet þ IPTIA - bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com:2323
 * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

.