🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #236

Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released

#236
From: Philip J. Koenig
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:16
63 lines
4083 bytes
In article <976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott 
Norwood) writes...
> 
> In article <WqBl6.3899$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 agree to a point.  However there is a difference between 
walking down the street looking in neighbors windows in the
middle of the day from the curb, and sneaking around at night
with a mask on checking for open doors.  One act is obvious,
wide-open, and relatively unobtrusive, the other is 
surreptitious and unlikely to be for any constructive purpose.

Scanning the internet to see how many email hosts are out
there is probably an acceptable (if annoying) practice if
you're a researcher compiling statistics for a study.  But 
scanning for known exploitable security holes is a much 
more questionable practice.  Personally I think it's a grey
area.  

I have a suggestion: you want to scan for vulnerabilities?
Let's create a registry at the IANA where a portscanner can 
register what they're planning to do, so when we see people 
poking around we can go look up the registry and ascertain 
whether you're legit or not. 

I for one don't really care if some stranger "innocently"
walks into my backyard late at night checking my kitchen 
door locks and windows - I *don't like it*.



-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization       [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . com    *
*      Vision impaired?  Try taking off the blacklist-colored glasses.       *
* Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *
Technical Details
Message-ID: <MPG.15026d524c1681c98a00f@207.126.101.100>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
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> <976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com>

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: 10090f,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gid10090f,public
X-Google-Thread: 113850,b3c453f70036b961
X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-25 01:18:07 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid (Philip J. Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.security.firewalls,bellsouth.net.security,comp.dcom.xdsl,comp.dcom.modems.cable
Subject: Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:16:42 -0800
Organization: The Ekahuna Organization
Message-ID: <MPG.15026d524c1681c98a00f@207.126.101.100>
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> <976pnb$jon$2@news.panix.com>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 63