Linux - SecurityThis forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I;ve been using fail2ban for a long time. I thought I had all the bases covered. I've got jails for everything (I thought), but now there seems to be a whole new wave of idiots.
I have no idea what they are looking for, but does anyone out there know of a Fail2ban action script that can pick up this stream of 403 and 404 errors that these morons are producing? See sample below : -
I have no experience with fail2ban, but maybe something like mod_security which is an application firewall for webservers, is highly configurable, it can be made to look out for things like that, then take what action you tell it too
Joomla exploits mostly and quite old. The ones I searched for are 2009-ish and as such have been in the Snort Emerging Threats rule set for some time. The fact queries get a 403 or 404 is good but is a good sign but it's always better to ensure you're not running a stale installation or plugins of anything accessible through the web stack (in short: know what you run). If you're serious about blocking this, remember web servers see a lot of noise, then I agree anything that blocks (near-) real time would be more efficient than something that runs checks every n cycles, see http://blog.spiderlabs.com/2011/11/m...dentified.html for some leads.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.