nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port scanning legal
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:56:18 -0500
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 02:06:04PM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Shawn McMahon wrote:How many ports must be scanned before you deem it an attack? Is one port enough? Five? 50?I don't deem a port scan as vicious or an attack.
How about "scanning" 1 million ports per second, over and over again? :-) -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Current thread:
- Port scanning legal Edward S. Marshall (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Jeff Wheat (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Patrick Evans (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal John Fraizer (Dec 19)
- 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 Jeff Wheat (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)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Port scanning legal Mark Borchers (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Roeland Meyer (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Dan Hollis (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (Dec 19)