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.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Distribution: Gentoo Hardened using OpenRC not Systemd
Posts: 1,454
Rep:
Fail2ban
How much overhead is there for leaving fail2ban to check for a lot of services that I do not have installed and web apps that I do not have in Apache? Is it best to leave all of those uncommented out in jail.conf? I thought I was not supposed to edit that file. Commenting them out in jail.local won't disable them.
The guide I am following is for Ubuntu, and I am running CentOS 7. So that is probably why it says that by default only sshd in Fail2ban is enabled, and for me, it seems at least 20 types or more are enabled by default in my jail.conf file.
So if I do edit the jail.conf to comment out a lot of unneeded checks, when fail2ban upgrades by my distro, it will overwrite that file, and I will need to do it each time.
In my experience fail2ban only fires up on an access to ser4vices it monitors. If the service is not there, it will never fire up for that access. My experience with it is more than a year old now, and that was not the latest version, but if it is representative of the current behavior you need not worry. Check the man page for the config file for detail on disabling monitoring of specific services. (OR, just read the original file: it used to be very well commented.)
Even if a host tries an attack to a service that you don't run, it is not a bad idea to let fail2ban ban it as a precaution. You may avoid the overhead and dangers of subsequent attacks, especially in the case of web applications.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.