[31862] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: whois
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brett L. Hawn)
Tue Oct 24 10:23:09 2000
From: "Brett L. Hawn" <brett.hawn@rcn.com>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, <tme@21rst-century.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:15:04 -0400
Message-ID: <MAEJKFFCKMKEONKLJAGNCECOCAAA.brett.hawn@rcn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200010241411.e9OEBun22454@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
As a general rule, a response of any sort is preferable to nothing, at least
it means somebody bothered to read the complaint, which is quite a stretch
from the truth in quite a few places.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:12 AM
> To: tme@21rst-century.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: whois
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:53:16 EDT, Marshall Eubanks
> <tme@21rst-century.com> said:
> > Are you really saying that if I tell you that a dial-up user on
> your network
> > hacked into my system at some precise time, from a precise IP address
> > (so that you could probably tell easily which user did it), and did so
> > in a fashion
> > which suggested an automated "script kiddie" effort, I should only
> > expect a response from you if I PAY for it ?!?
>
> Umm... would you be satisfied with a "We've referred it to the appropriate
> people" response?
>
> At least here, and probably many other universities, we're stuck not being
> able to say much more than that due to student confidentiality rules...
>
> Yes, we take action. No, we usually can't say what we did.
> --
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Operating Systems Analyst
> Virginia Tech
>
>
