Honeypots mailing list archives
Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question
From: Chris Brenton <cbrenton () chrisbrenton org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:24:29 -0500
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 10:50, Adam Carlson wrote:
So I ask again, why is that regulation necessary and what is it attempting to regulate? Would having a honeypot that is an active, backup dns server as you suggest be allowed under the alliance?
I did not write the section, by my interpretation of "active" means data collection that would involve sending packets to the target. For example running an nmap scan of the source IP that compromised your system would be considered to be "active data collection". Lance dude, thoughts on this? Chris
Current thread:
- Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Adam Carlson (Mar 15)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question sushant (Mar 15)
- RE: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Christopher Cook (Mar 15)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Adam Carlson (Mar 16)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Chris Brenton (Mar 16)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Sushant Sinha (Mar 16)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Adam Carlson (Mar 16)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Chris Brenton (Mar 16)
- Re: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question sushant (Mar 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Honeynet Alliance Charter Question Croad Christopher D Contr AFRL/IFOSS (Mar 16)