Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #199Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released
From: Scott Norwood
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:54
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:54
29 lines
2674 bytes
2674 bytes
In article <WqBl6.3899$S25.55097@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote: >[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE] > >In <97656j$d8f$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott >Norwood) wrote: > >>I'm all in favor of laws which prohibit unauthorized access and >>damage to computer systems, but a simple portscan does not constitute >>unauthorized access! It's the equivalent of asking a machine which >>public services it provides and nothing else. A portscan in and of >>itself does not constitute a threat and should not be treated as one. > >Port scanning is like sneaking around late at night trying to open front >doors. Suggesting that's not a threat if the sneak doesn't actually >enter is at best naive IMHO. We obviously disagree here. My own preference is for laws which actually address the problems which need to be solved, rather than laws which address actions which sometimes cause the problems in question. I'd rather have a law that makes breaking and entering (which is genuinely harmful to society) a crime, rather than one which criminalizes walking down the street late at night and looking (not touching) to see whose doors are open... I can understand the other viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<3A966412.9336DCD8@mynetwatchman.com> <jtvl6.1306$aA5.364833@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> <97656j$d8f$2@news.panix.com> <WqBl6.3899$S25.55097@typhoon.sonic.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: 113850,b3c453f70036b961 X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public X-Google-Thread: 10090f,b3c453f70036b961 X-Google-Attributes: gid10090f,public X-Google-Thread: f5dc1,b3c453f70036b961 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5dc1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-23 14:56:03 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) Newsgroups: comp.security.firewalls,bellsouth.net.security,comp.dcom.xdsl,comp.dcom.modems.cable Subject: Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released Date: 23 Feb 2001 22:54:36 GMT Organization: Society for World Domination Lines: 29 Message-ID: <976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com> References: <3A966412.9336DCD8@mynetwatchman.com> <jtvl6.1306$aA5.364833@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> <97656j$d8f$2@news.panix.com> <WqBl6.3899$S25.55097@typhoon.sonic.net> Reply-To: snorwood@redballoon.net NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 982968876 20247 166.84.0.228 (23 Feb 2001 22:54:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Feb 2001 22:54:36 GMT X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000) Originator: snorwood@panix.com (Scott Norwood)