|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:26:33 -0800 (PST) From: <mdevney@teamsphere.com> To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200012191703.eBJH3nCW233176@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012191622200.31804-100000@core.teamplay.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > 3) Let's not forget that a *scan* only actually impairs the integrity > of a network that hasn't been secured against scanning. You'll never > have somebody walk up to you and say "Hey, your front door is unlocked" > if you always lock your front door. > I do not understand why people get so uppity about a scan. Let's be real here, a simple portscan is about equivalent to walking along a sidewalk and checking out the houses for open windows and doors. And about as harmful. What is harmful is what sometimes comes after that. (Not always; not usually; not even half the time I'd bet.) But the only damage a portscan does is a few packets over your network and maybe 4M of logs (depending on how you're logging). When writing and enforcing laws, it's important to punish what's harmful, not what may be harmful. Or else looking at houses as you walk down the street may be illegal. Matthew Devney System Administrator Teamsphere Interactive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |