Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning

[Charley Hamilton <chamilto () uci edu>]

> On 2004-03-17 Charley Hamilton wrote:
> > Authorized users are told they are authorized users.  If you are not
> > an authorized user, what difference does it make what protocols are
> > accepted?
>
>
> Then how do I become an authorized user of www.google.com?
>
> [...]

See the reasonable man hypothesis comments below.  Reasonably, if someone
names a server www.foo.bar, most people would conclude it is intended
to be accessible to the general public.  The fact that an individual has 
advanced techincal knowledge does not authorize them to employ that knowledge
to identify otherwise unannounced services.  Knowledge = power, not
authority.

> > The "reasonable man" hypothesis applies to connecting to a system to
> > which authorization is in doubt.  Would a reasonable man conclude that
> > http://www.cnn.com is an acceptable connection in the absence of
> > explicit permission?  I would say 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.
> > What's the difference?  HTTP is generally accepted to be a public
> > connection, in the sense that it is intended as a shared resource, to
> > be accessible to all.  FTP is not generally accepted as such,
> > regardless of what electronic storefront happens to be offering the
> > service.
>
>
> That's simply not true.

I admit FTP was a poor choice.  Detailed response in reply to
Barry Fitzgerald.  Were you also referring to something else?  The terse
answers don't make for much of a conversation.  More like you're
delivering divine wisdom.

> > Similarly, www.foo.com is generally expected to be a public http
> > server.  Therefore, making an HTTP connection to that server is
> > reasonable.  accounts-payable.foo.com is *not* generally expected to
> > be a public http server.  Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume
> > that it would be offering public http services.  Any such services
> > would reasonably be intended for authorized users only.
>
>
> No.

That's a one word answer if I ever saw one.  Why no?  Why is this not
the reasonable conclusion?

> Regards
> Ansgar Wiechers

Charley

--
Charles Hamilton, PhD EIT               Faculty Fellow
Department of Civil and                 Phone: 949.824.3752
    Environmental Engineering           FAX:   949.824.2117
University of California, Irvine        Email: chamilto () uci edu




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------