🚀 go-pugleaf

My ports are my ports.  They're not your ports.  Unless I invite you to use
them, you have no business probing or scanning or doing anything else with
them.  If you do, it's malicious in my opinion.

No one is interfering with your First Amendment right to broadcast anything
you want.  Just don't bother me with it.  Anyway, the bandwidth argument may
apply to spammers, but not to creeps looking to do something more than get
my attention.


"Masked Phrogg" <erexshun@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:13hg9tc63rs45lvv4nco6qtgqeqd97tioo@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:37:51 GMT, "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.
>
Who is to decide what is "malicious" port scanning? Beyond obvious
examples that absorb unreasonable amounts of bandwidth from the target
scanned.
"Congress shall make no act..."
If this isn't already it soon will be a First Amendment issue.
I WANT to be able to broadcast on many non-standard ports. What gives
anyone the right or obligation to deprive it's users the ability to
scan for those ports?

>"Cuervo Jones" <cuervo_jones@altavista.com> wrote in message
>news:OTul6.2816$L04.327284@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>Oh dear...  I pray that my ISP doesn't start trying to become a security
>expert...  The last thing they need to do is start baby-sitting us.  It
will
>only interfere with those of us who know what's going on, and the majority
>of the people will never know anything has EVER happened to them...for
them,
>I say ignorance is bliss.
>
That's one view.
I agree, if I wanted a network "babysitter" I'd contract one.
Certainly not a reasonable expectation of a simpe _Internet Service
Provider_
Many of us would benefit from the reduced rates inherent with a
provider that tried to do little more than provide access (-:

>
>"Joe King" <cluelessnewbie*@home.com> wrote in message
>news:1orc9t0dblf72e35c9vvjj562kfff17vmm@can.gov...
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:22:26 -0500, Lawrence Baldwin
>> <baldwinlSPAMMENOT@mynetwatchman.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The last thing I want to do is give this guy any press, but figured I'd
>> >send a heads up:
>> >
>> >http://www.sharesniffer.com/FAQ.html#Q-001
>> >
>> >Advocates utilizing the open shares for extra disk space "...because
>> >it's there".
>> >
This has certainly changed in the last 24hrs, if this is a valid quote
to begin with.
=====================================================
Q: What are the system requirements for ShareSniffer?
A: ShareSniffer requires one of the
          following operating systems:
�
          Microsoft Windows [basically all 32bit versions]
=====================================================
There is certainly an editorial slant toward the idea that these
shares are available by _choice_
Active _choice_ of the admin of the PC. This cannot be true as Windows
goes to some effort to coerce or trick the user into making shares
availble globally.

>> >My biggest concern is that it utilizes a newsgroup repository to collect
>> >and dissemenate IP addresses with known open shares.  Others (including
>> >automated worms) could easily leverage this data, facilitating system
>> >compromises.
>>
As if this doesn't go on already.
This is simply a more publicized version of what is already happening
in a few clique like circles.

>> The up side of it (if there is one) is that it just might start
>> publicly pointing the finger at people who refuse to RTFM and take
>> reasonable precautions to secure their systems, and others who plain
>> just don't give a damn about what is going in or out of their
>> system/connection.
>>
yeah, right
>> It might also force some of the broadband cable operators to take a
>> more pro-active approach to securing and protecting their subscribers
>> with a secure and monitored infrastructure.
>>
My ISP has NO BUSINESS monitoring my connection
NoThankYouVeryMuch
>> >Expect an increase in Netbios scans over the coming days....sigh.
>>
>> As opposed to what... being banged 50 times a day with RPC port
>> probes, Sub 7/2 port probes?..LOL
Ouch!
I guess BellSouth is well reknowned for it's network manglement and
isn't a desirable target <sniff> :-)

M Phrogg
-=-
"I oppose it because I believe individuals need the
means to protect their own privacy whether from
governments or criminals. We need to find a balance
between individual freedom and state authority for
(the presumed) general welfare and security. We want
security, but there is no security if anyone has too
much power."
   ==Esther Dyson comments to tech.thirsty.com on why
   the UK's RIP bill is "clueless policy"