nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet-wide port scans
From: Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:38:52 -0400
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:48:47 -0400, Darius Jahandarie said:On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:Want to re-write that section or should I respond now? ;-)I always thought it wasn't allowed because of 18 USC 2701, but IINAL, would be happy to hear otherwise :)If a portscan allows access to stored communications, you have bigger problems.
In particular, my understanding was that since you're sending a SYN, it could very well initiate access to stored communications (although that may have not been the intent of the SYN). But maybe I'm wrong -- and even if I'm right, this seems like something that probably wouldn't hold in court very well anyways. -- Darius Jahandarie
Current thread:
- Internet-wide port scans Florian Weimer (Oct 15)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Darius Jahandarie (Oct 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Scott Weeks (Oct 15)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Bacon Zombie (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Darius Jahandarie (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Darius Jahandarie (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Jimmy Hess (Oct 16)
- Re: Internet-wide port scans Jay Ashworth (Oct 16)