I already have installed Fail2Ban on my server. I planned to install PSAD on it. Are they equal? Isn't it a good idea to keep them both?
Printable View
I already have installed Fail2Ban on my server. I planned to install PSAD on it. Are they equal? Isn't it a good idea to keep them both?
Any idea?
Good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by THPubs
They are not. The PSAD web site tells you about its origin, its reason-for-being and how it implements things. Know that and you can determine if they are equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by THPubs
Since you run a server look at what services you provide and how you have hardened them. Then look at what and how you audit for anomalies, errors and malicious activity. Then look at what the past and current "threatscape" tells you about how ninety nine per cent of (say web) servers get compromised. Putting that together should give you an idea of how reconnaissance, exploiting and aftermath should have been detected (and prevented or mitigated) at the network and the application level.Quote:
Originally Posted by THPubs
Then ask yourself if your server would benefit from running a substitute (partial detection based on an approximation of part of the functionality something else provides, requiring three daemon processes, syslog-filling LOG target rules, doing NS and WHOIS requests for each alert sent and the constant "entertainment" of having to figure out what these email actually try to convey) instead of the functionality the original provides.
Port scans are a part of life for systems open to the web. You don't need to be notified of them (unless you really, really want to). Limiting exposure with iptables is probably a better option than logging every possible port scan with PSAD.
Of the two, Fail2Ban is more valuable because it deals with access attempts.
PSAD can deal with access attempts as well (by blocking the attempts, an option that isn't set as default). You can set this by enabling "ENABLE_AUTO_IDS" within the conf file.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpSecShellshock