[31466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: netscan.org update
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Sun Sep 24 17:56:20 2000
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:53:34 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000924175334.A46043@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009231836250.87934-100000@localhost>; from Patrick Greenwell on Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 06:39:37PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 06:39:37PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Can someone explain to me why it is ok to blindly scan other peoples
> networks without their permission for smurf amplifiers and post the
> results, while doing the same for SMTP servers has met with heavy
> criticism?
A large part of it is probably that very few administrators
set of warning bells on a single ping, but a substantial fraction of
mail administrators get floods of e-mail warnings from the mail testing
programs, wasting their time and energy.
When you scan properly locked down boxes in a way that fills
an admins mailbox they get testy.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
