🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #157

Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released

#157
From: Dave Mundt
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:58
58 lines
4579 bytes
	Greetings and Salutations...

"Justin Emalius" <notta.name@notta.server.net> wrote:

>I see nothing wrong with having my ISP/DSL provider acting to curb malicious
>port scanners.  I'd also like the U.S. Congress to consider making port
>scanning a criminal act.
>
	Hum...my reaction is that these are two separate issues.  Firstly,
I suspect that there is no way that an ISP will set up to block
"malicious port scanners" for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, there are
the resources that would be required.  It would by the by, also
require that YOU fill out a form specifying what ports are open on
your system for public connections and which are not.  More work for
you there.   As for having the Congress get its muddy fingers into the
pie...that is like swatting flies with a howitzer.  Not only is it
scary and loud, it usually does not work, and, the collateral damage
is WAY higher than anyone wants.  Speaking of which...what would these
laws say is illegal, and, what would the punishment be?
	The fact of the matter is that I lock my doors, both in the
physical and virtual worlds.  If someone comes by and jiggles the
knob, they will find it closed and move on.  Am I responsible for
making sure that my neighbor does this, too?  I think not, although if
I see strangers there, I will likely report it to them.  I suppose
that we could simply apply the laws of trespass here...it is a naughty
thing to do, but, not nearly on the order of evil as breaking in and
stealing stuff would be.
	As an example of how you are trying to criminalize netizens...I
have been on the Net long enough that my preferred tool for moving
large chunks of data around is FTP.  If I run across a file that
interests me, but, the only listed method of access is via HTTP, I
will fire up the FTP program and try hitting the site, just to see if
there is an unadvertised door that I can use.  From MY point of view,
this is a valid technique.  It sounds as if that from YOUR point of
view, I am attempting to engage in a Federal crime.
	Teaching folks how to lock their doors is a FAR more productive
thing to do than creating draconian laws to punish those that attempt
to trespass.  There have been good points made that there are forms of
port scanning that are likely signs of attempts to break in.  Well,
again...a locked door is a great defense, and, teaching folks how to
turn the key is the best tool.
	Microsoft has, alas, traditionally had really lousy security on
their operating systems.  I think that this comes from the touching
idealism of the original geeks that built the "really cool code" that
runs all their various applications.  Those folks seem to have a world
view that makes it hard for them to understand that their cool toys
might be abused and provide unauthorized access for others.  Of
course, there is the more paranoid view that M$ has done this on
purpose, as part of a plan for world domination....
	In any case, I get hit with on a number of ports with some
regularity.  The locks have held so far. *smile*.
	Regards
	Dave Mundt

Remove the "REMOVE_THIS_" from my email address to get to me...
I hate Cullers who gather from newsgroups

Visit my home page at http://www.esper.com/xvart/index.html
Technical Details
Message-ID: <3a9998a5.148252645@news.lig.bellsouth.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!64.71.136.253.MISMATCH!news!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail
References: <3A966412.9336DCD8@mynetwatchman.com> <1orc9t0dblf72e35c9vvjj562kfff17vmm@can.gov> <OTul6.2816$L04.327284@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <jtvl6.1306$aA5.364833@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f922c,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gidf922c,public
X-Google-Thread: f5dc1,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gidf5dc1,public
X-Google-Thread: 113850,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public
X-Google-Thread: 10090f,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gid10090f,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-25 16:06:03 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!64.71.136.253.MISMATCH!news!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: REMOVE_THIS_xmundt@yahoo.com (Dave Mundt)
Newsgroups: comp.security.firewalls,bellsouth.net.security,comp.dcom.xdsl,comp.dcom.modems.cable
Subject: Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released
Message-ID: <3a9998a5.148252645@news.lig.bellsouth.net>
References: <3A966412.9336DCD8@mynetwatchman.com> <1orc9t0dblf72e35c9vvjj562kfff17vmm@can.gov> <OTul6.2816$L04.327284@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <jtvl6.1306$aA5.364833@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 58
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:58:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.20.128.164
X-Trace: news2.atl 983145559 66.20.128.164 (Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:59:19 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:59:19 EST