nanog mailing list archives
Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph () istop com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
That's a netblock, not an IP address. Your script kiddie at home with a cable modem or ADSL connection is not going to have his IP SWIP'd or populated in his ISP's rwhois server. Try that with 206.47.27.12 for instance. That is a Sympatico ADSL customer here in Ottawa. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. On Sun, 19 May 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
helium:~$ whois -a 207.99.113.65 Net Access Corporation (NETBLK-NAC-NETBLK01) 1719b Route 10E, Suite 111 Parsippany, NJ 07054 US Netname: NAC-NETBLK01 Netblock: 207.99.0.0 - 207.99.127.255 Maintainer: NAC Coordinator: Net Access Corporation (ZN77-ARIN) legal () nac net 800-638-6336 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NS1.NAC.NET 207.99.0.1 NS2.NAC.NET 207.99.0.2 ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE * Reassignment information for this network is available * at whois.nac.net 43 On Sun, 19 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:rough assessment of their network security, which was important to me as a customer for obvious reasons.In that case, I would not consider the scan to have come from an 'unaffiliated' person. I'm sure if the bank's network operator noticed it, and contacted you, things would have been cleared up with no harm done. ToIt sounds like you know something that I don't. How do you find out the contact information for someone given only an IP address? -Ralph-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex () nac net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Current thread:
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product), (continued)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Greg A. Woods (May 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) JC Dill (May 19)
- Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Gifford (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Alex Rubenstein (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) william (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Stephen J. Wilcox (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Dan Hollis (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Greg A. Woods (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Gifford (May 19)
- RE: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) James (May 19)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Greg A. Woods (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Greg A. Woods (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 19)