[47963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re[4]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Sun May 19 11:21:30 2002
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: Allan Liska <allan@allan.org>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2987948394.20020519111426@allan.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205191119380.27298-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> If they don't give a satisfactory bank somewhere else (or offer your
> services ;)). Certainly that is a better approach than scanning to
> see what you can find out. The organization receiving the scan has
> no way of knowing what your intentions are -- and should interpret
> them as hostile.
I think that's pretty stupid. If I had my network admin investigate every
portscan, my staff costs would go up 10x and I'd quickly go bankrupt.
Instead we keep our servers very secure, and spend the time and effort
only when there is evidence of a break in.
