Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.
From: "Gnuthad" <securityfocus () aussie mine nu>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:34:27 +1100
I am of two minds over such probes from a network provider. On one hand I welcome scans for open proxies and relays as this helps to prevent abuse not only of that provider's network but also of my network and all intervening networks. I doubt that I am alone in receiving (and blocking) thousands of spam emails every day from open relays and proxies on home-based computers. On the other hand, should service providers be doing widespread port scans on their customers' systems without permission? In this respect, I consider such a scan to be as much abuse of the network as a customer spewing out thousands of spam emails a minute. I have used service providers who have performed regular relay checks (port 25 only) on all their customers and I am very pleased that such a system exists for that provider as it helps to ensure that home users with mis-configured or unknown servers are located and notified of their problem before widespread abuse occurs. I was at one stage blocking the servers doing these scans but I later removed those blocks because I had a think about the situation and came to the conclusion that a relay test of my (correctly configured and secure) email server demonstrated that my provider was serious about preventing network abuse. I am proud to let my provider know that I run an email server which is secure and does not relay for unauthorised persons. Unfortunately my current provider does not undertake this same scanning however they have been very quick to locate and shut down any customers who have open relays and proxies, something which is sadly lacking in many providers more interested in their customers' money than being a good netizen. Gnuthad securityfocus () aussie mine nu ---------- Note: This address accepts emails only from securityfocus servers. If you wish to reply please do so via this list rather than directly as your email will be otherwise refused. ---------- On 12 Mar 2004 at 8:42, Charles Otstot wrote:
I would certainly consider port scanning to be an attack, based on the intention(s) implied by such activity. Although I am far from a security expert from a technical perspective, it seems to me that the answer to this question lies not in technical arguments, but rather on determining whether one has the right to access someone else's network without permission. I, for one, believe that noone (and no organization) has the right to access my network or any systems on that network without permission. Permission to access a given resource does not necessarily have to be explicit (i.e accessing a publicly hosted web page would generally be permissible), however, ordinary concepts of reasonableness (what a reasonable person would consider ok) certainly apply (e.g. intentionally accessing an accidentally accessible resource that is clearly intended to not be accessible would be considered improper). I would view port scanning, regardless of the source, as improper access to the network. It seems to me that a reasonable person would not consider it permissible for an outside entity (e.g a business competitor) to surrepticiously attempt (the breadth and depth of the access and the resources accessed without explicit permission would help one determine whether the attempt.is indeed surrepticious) to access resources on the network. A port scan against one or more hosts by an outside agent implies an attempt to find services with potential holes active on the network. That in, and of itself, implies that the scanner will utilize any information found to launch (further) attacks against specific hosts in an attempt to gain further access to the network. As the "scanee", I can only consider such access an unwanted, unauthorized intrusion with (likely) malicious intent. As such, I would necessarily view port scans to be an attack (even if only limited) against the network. Charlie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization. Visit us at: http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. jbod (Mar 09)
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Greg (Mar 10)
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Mitchell Rowton (Mar 11)
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. steve (Mar 12)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] (Mar 15)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Mark Medici (Mar 12)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 12)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Aditya, ALD [Aditya Lalit Deshmukh] (Mar 15)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 12)
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Gnuthad (Mar 15)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Mark Medici (Mar 15)
- RE: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 15)
- Re: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning. Greg (Mar 10)