Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
From: "David Gillett" <gillettdavid () fhda edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:38:28 -0800
There are legitimate reasons for running a port scan on a computer in a limited fashion, such as service discovery.
Portscans don't discover services, just ports.
Would a reasonable man conclude that http://www.cnn.com is an acceptable connection in the absence of explicitpermission? I wouldsay yes, he would. Would a reasonable man conclude that ftp://www.cnn.com is an acceptable connection in the absence of explicit permission? I would argue no, he would not.I would argue that you're wrong. Anonymous FTP is a very frequent occurrance on the internet and it's not unreasonable to expect that CNN might have an anonymous FTP site for content. What, exactly, makes you think that it's an unreasonable service to use?
If CNN wants to provide an anonymous FTP service, they're likely to put it on ftp://ftp.cnn.com . www.cnn.com should almost certainly be dedicated to web service, and any FTP service running on that box is *probably* only intended for distribution of content updates to the web site; if it accepts anonymous connections, that's more likely by mistake than by design. "Reasonable man" says that if they have an intended anonymous FTP site, that's not where it is. Dave Gillett --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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:
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning, (continued)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning ~Kevin DavisĀ³ (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 23)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Mortis (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 22)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Derek Schaible (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charles Otstot (Mar 22)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning David Gillett (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 19)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Yvan Boily (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Murad Talukdar (Mar 19)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Derek Schaible (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 19)
- RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] David Gillett (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] ~Kevin DavisĀ³ (Mar 18)