[32966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Port scanning legal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marius Strom)
Tue Dec 19 17:51:32 2000
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:49:33 -0600
From: Marius Strom <marius@marius.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001219164932.D28959@marius.org>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
*frantically rewrites AUP's to read as follows:*
5.17 While we provide network connectivity, you must verify the host you
are connecting to by using whois(1) to make sure it's not a military or
government site. Use information from the whois(1) records to contact
by phone the sites in question. Make sure to contact ARIN/RIPE/APNIC
before querying their whois servers. Contact us before querying our DNS
servers for ARIN/RIPE/APNIC hostname information.
Not to step in the middle of a firefight without a waterhouse, but come
on guys, this is getting absurd.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:26:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > I've pinged IP addrs that I later found out were MIL addrs. Nothing
> > happened. Duh!
>
> Cool. Care to portscan a couple .mil /16's and get back to me?
>
> > There are a LOT of IP addrs that aren't in the DNS. How is one to know?
>
> Hmm. whois perhaps?
>
> connecting to whois.arin.net [192.149.252.21:43] ...
> HQ 7th Signal Command (NETBLK-ARMY-C) NETBLK-ARMY-C198.49.183.0 - 198.49.192.0
> INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMAND (NET-NSMCNET) NSMCNET198.49.185.0 - 198.49.185.255
>
> Naah, that makes too much sense. Can't have that now can we.
>
> > I don't know about you, but I flunked telepathy in High School and did
> > worse in clarvoyance.
>
> One might argue its not the only thing you flunked.
>
> > Could it be, that is why ping and traceroute were invented?
>
> ping and traceroute are a far cry from nmap. I dont recall ping and
> traceroute having a 'decoy host' option, or 'stealth' option for example,
> nor any option to scan entire nets and ranges of ports.
>
> > The argument against port-scanning applies equally well to just about every
> > diagnostic tool we use.
>
> Only by the most convoluted thinking.
>
> -Dan
>
--
Marius Strom <marius@marius.org>
Professional Geek/Unix System Administrator
URL: http://www.marius.org
http://www.marius.org/marius.pgp 0x55DE53E4
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a mini-van full of DLT
tapes traveling down the highway at 65 miles per hour..."
-Andrew Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks"
