nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port scanning legal
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet () graffiti com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:49:10 -0500
I suspect we've wandered from the point somewhat.
a little.
The original discussion arose from a report of an individual landing himself in court as a result of scanning a network which housed (at the very minimum) a 911 center and a police department.
my read of it, in brief was like this: some dude was working for 911 at the task of adding a line between 911 and the police dept (easy work). concerned about security, he scanned the network where the 911 systems were and happened to hit upon another company's machine (imho, completely understandable). why this went to court is beyond me. this *ought*, imho, to have been tackled with a few phone calls between, say, the head of the 911 stuff, perhaps someone from the police dept, someone from the county (to vouch for the guy), and someone from the "other company". this court stuff is silly. -- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior () daemon org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet () graffiti com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew () crossbar com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
Current thread:
- RE: Port scanning legal, (continued)
- 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 L. Sassaman (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Majdi S. Abbas (Dec 19)
- Re: Port scanning legal Shawn McMahon (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)
- 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)