[32959] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Port scanning legal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jade E. Deane)
Tue Dec 19 16:09:07 2000
Message-ID: <7DCF595E8668D411BB4C00B0D020158264EEA3@HNEMAIL2>
From: "Jade E. Deane" <jade.deane@HelloNetwork.com>
To: 'Roeland Meyer' <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
'Dan Hollis' <goemon@sasami.anime.net>
Cc: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:47:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Could we all please put away our members for a moment?
The bottom line is, there are times and places where "port scanning" is
required. I would assume the intelligence level of this group warrants no
in depth explanation or case study.
How about this, differentiating between legitimate "port scans" and preempts
to an attack. How, when, and where. Also, correct escalation procedures to
security departments and law officials.
Jade
Jade E. Deane
Network Engineer
helloNetwork.com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Office: +1 (702) 938-9267
Cell: +1 (702) 604-4759
Fax: +1 (702) 456-1471
email: jade.deane@helloNetwork.com
urgent epage: 7026044759@page.nextel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:41 PM
To: 'Dan Hollis'; Roeland Meyer
Cc: Shawn McMahon; 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: RE: Port scanning legal
> From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon@sasami.anime.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:26 PM
> > The argument against port-scanning applies equally well to
> just about every
> > diagnostic tool we use.
>
> Only by the most convoluted thinking.
Let's see, we *are* talking court cases and lawyers here ... what was that
you said about convoluted thinking? When was th last time you argued with an
attorney, either in or out of court? When was the last successful time?
