Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!!
From: Rune Kristian Viken <arcade () KVINESDAL COM>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:11:25 +0200
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, you wrote:
While this may not hold for stupid analogies such as not passing through an unlocked door which has no explicit warning against trespass (eg. your car door), it's pretty obvious when you consider what the Internet is for and why people usually connect up to the Internet.
I've always found the comparison between "checking if a door is locked" and portscanning to be absurd. Portscanning is like LOOKING at a house, to se if it has any windows/doors at all. We can't ban our eyes, can we? And, trying to use existing services can't be considered abuse neither. Only if you try to break through the service offered, then you do something like "testing if the door is open". If I try to execute an exploit against a daemon, then that is equivalent to checking if the door is open. -- "Rune Kristian Viken" <arcade () kvinesdal com> / arcade@irc (EFnet/IRCnet) Kvinesdalsnett System Administrator (http://arcade.kvinesdal.com/)
Current thread:
- ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! sec (Sep 12)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Jose Nazario (Sep 12)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Benjamin Krueger (Sep 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Robert G. Ferrell (Sep 12)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! David Knapp (Sep 13)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! UnixGeek (Sep 13)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Ryan Russell (Sep 14)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Greg A. Woods (Sep 14)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Rune Kristian Viken (Sep 17)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! UnixGeek (Sep 13)
- Re: ICMP mapping, questioning legality!! Steve Stearns (Sep 13)