nanog mailing list archives
RE: Port scanning legal
From: Mathew Butler <mbutler () tonbu com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:17:44 -0800
Great, so you're suggesting punishing good locksmiths or windowmen. -Mat Butler -----Original Message----- From: Christian Kuhtz [mailto:ck () arch bellsouth net] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:35 PM To: mdevney () teamsphere com Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Port scanning legal On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 04:26:33PM -0800, mdevney () teamsphere com wrote:
I do not understand why people get so uppity about a scan. Let's be real here, a simple portscan is about equivalent to walking along a sidewalk and checking out the houses for open windows and doors. And about as harmful. What is harmful is what sometimes comes after that. (Not always; not usually; not even half the time I'd bet.) But the only damage a portscan does is a few packets over your network and maybe 4M of logs (depending on how you're logging). When writing and enforcing laws, it's important to punish what's harmful, not what may be harmful. Or else looking at houses as you walk down the street may be illegal.
I do think there is a difference between looking at houses and windows from the street and walking up to them and rattling the door and windows to see if it they are locked or determining what model lock, door or window is used etc.
Current thread:
- RE: Port scanning legal, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (Dec 19)
- RE: Port scanning legal Larry Sheldon (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal J.D. Falk (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Steve Sobol (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal jlewis (Dec 19)
- Re: [OT]Port scanning legal Henry R. Linneweh (Dec 20)
- Re: [OT]Port scanning legal Brian W. (Dec 20)
- [OT] Re: Port scanning legal Adam Rothschild (Dec 19)