Re: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities?

Is portknocking a weaker security mechanism. Does that discount it completely.

Telnet and ftp our clear text. Just because something can be defeated doesn't 
mean it loses 'all' its classification
A door is meant to provide some defense to the outside of your house. I can 
certainly bash it in with a sledge hammer. It still serves its purpose as a 
layer of the defense.

Again we are talking about security basics here. You can say it isn't viable or 
is inherently weak. But the way it is implemented its used for authentication. 
Plain and simple.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers [mailto:bugtraq@planetcobalt.net]
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Sent: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Port-Knocking vulnerabilities?

On 2007-12-28 Jay wrote:
> Portknocking is a security mechanism as it is a type of
> authentication. "Something you know" in this case the sequence of
> ports to knock before a unstarted service or daemon begins listening
> for connections.

Since everything is transmitted in the clear port-knocking is as much of
a security mechanism as cleartext passwords. Technically: maybe
(depending on your definition). Realistically: no.

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously inconveniences the user."
--http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html