Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #157Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released
From: Dave Mundt
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:58
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:58
58 lines
4579 bytes
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-mailReferences:
<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