nanog mailing list archives
RE: Port scanning legal
From: Mark Borchers <mborchers () splitrock net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:04:14 -0600
The gray area of port-scanning legality came up at Usenix's conference earlier this month. I believe the consensus was that you are on firmer ground when organizations who own machines that attackers might perform port scans FROM have AUP's that prohibit such activity. Nothing in this court case would seem to prevent an organization from disciplining individuals for using a system for an administratively prohibited purpose.
-----Original Message----- From: Edward S. Marshall [mailto:emarshal () logic net] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:43 AM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Port scanning legal http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/article.html?id=126 A quick quote from the article: A tiff between two IT contractors that spiraled into federal court ended last month with a U.S. district court ruling in Georgia that port scanning a network does not damage it, under a section of the anti-hacking laws that allows victims of cyber attack to sue an attacker.
Current thread:
- Re: Port scanning legal, (continued)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Alex Rubenstein (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Deepak Jain (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Leo Bicknell (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal mdevney (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Christian Kuhtz (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Todd Suiter (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Dan Hollis (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal L. Sassaman (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Majdi S. Abbas (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Dan Hollis (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Steven J. Sobol (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Patrick Evans (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Andrew Brown (Dec 20)