[56221] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charlie Clemmer)
Fri Feb 28 17:16:29 2003
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:15:03 -0600
To: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
From: Charlie Clemmer <cclemmer@nexgennetworks.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0302281625580.30448-100000@thunder.xecu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 04:54 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, Andy Dills wrote:
>You don't have to. This is why I never understood why people care so much
>about probing. If you do a good job with your network, probing will have
>zero affect on you. All the person probing can do (regardless of their
>intent) is say "Gee, I guess there aren't any vulnerabilities with this
>network."
I don't have to understand why you're probing my network? (using the term
"your" loosely, not referring specifically to Andy's network/hosts) The
actual probe may not have any affect on my network, but if you probe my
network/hosts because someone iusing the same colo facilities as me sent
you mail (not through me), there is no way for me to determine whether your
intent is hostile or not, and you will likely set off my IDS alerts.
There's two reasons to probe my hosts ... trying to protect your hosts or
trying to violate mine, and if I've not initiated any type of communication
to your host(s), I can only assume your intent is hostile since it was
unprovoked.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0
iQA/AwUBPl/fbavEtUU05riwEQKRLgCg2b7p6ua04d1tOIBtAWYe034+tOAAoKER
aiwfIt8uR557NG21FddezLQ8
=7hDv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----