Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #236Re: Cuervo, I disagree: ShareSniffer Released
From: Philip J. Koenig
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:16
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:16
63 lines
4083 bytes
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-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> <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