[26736] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fw: Administrivia: ORBS [LONG]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Fri Jan 14 17:07:23 2000
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Kai Schlichting <kai@pac-rim.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-Id: <E129Elc-000MNq-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:00:24 -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> People who object to their networks being scanned for SMTP vulnerabilities
> on occasion (with an interval that ranges from a couple of weeks to a couple
> of months) have something to hide. They are hiding incompetency, management
> failure, corporate idiocy , Dilbertism and most of all: financial interests
> that have managed to completely corrupt any dedication to providing secure,
> stable and responsible service on the Internet. Some people have apparently
> forgotten that the Internet does not work without consensus and respect
> for other entities making up the network as a whole:
or maybe the collocation provider sees security as THEIR business and
something THEY provide the customer. and maybe they see folk from outside
'testing' their network to be similar to someone walking down the street
testing homeowners' doorknobs.
not that i agree with this position completely, but i can see how someone
might hold that opinion. but your self-righteous hyperbole is rather over
the line.
> Those who violate principles of responsible networking morally forfeit any
> claim of protection under the same principles.
somehow, i think this high-sounding moral stand would not prevail in a court
of non-vigilante law. in fact, crackers who tried it as a defense failed.
randy
