nanog mailing list archives
Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
From: Henry Yen <henry () AegisInfoSys com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:11:03 -0400
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:48:27AM -0700, Scott Francis wrote: [ snip ]
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 04:10:53AM +0000, dr () kyx net said:
[ more snip ]
By all means if you are under attack, filter and protect yourself. However a "portscan" is not an attack.Precursor to an attack, certainly. As you mentioned earlier, forewarned is forearmed. If I find myself being scanned, as a responsible network operator I will contact the operator of the block in question, and if things are not cleared up to my satisfaction, I will take proactive measures to protect myself from the attacks that are sure to come by whatever means seem appropriate and necessary to me.
somewhat OT, but this was an interesting article from the NYTimes: Linkname: Museum's Cyberpeeping Artwork Has Its Plug Pulled URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/arts/design/13ARTS.html "An Internet-based artwork in an exhibition at the New Museum of Contemporary Art was taken offline on Friday because the work was conducting surveillance of outside computers." "The work in question is "Minds of Concern: Breaking News," created by Knowbotic Research, a group of digital artists in Switzerland. The piece is part of "Open Source Art Hack," an exhibition at the New Museum that runs through June 30. The work can be viewed as an installation in the museum's SoHo galleries or online at newmuseum.org." "The dispute calls attention to one of the very points the piece is intended to make. Because the lines between public and private control of the Internet are not yet clearly defined, what artists want to do may be perfectly legal, but that does not mean they will be allowed do it." -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
Current thread:
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product, (continued)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Dan Hollis (May 16)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Valdis . Kletnieks (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Dan Hollis (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Johannes Ullrich (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Valdis . Kletnieks (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Scott Francis (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Dan Hollis (May 16)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Dan Hollis (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Scott Francis (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Dan Hollis (May 17)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Scott Francis (May 17)
- Message not available
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Scott Francis (May 18)
- Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Henry Yen (May 18)
- Message not available
- 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 18)
- Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Allan Liska (May 18)
- Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) E.B. Dreger (May 18)
- Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: Re[2]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) up (May 19)
- Re[4]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Allan Liska (May 19)
- Re: Re[4]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re[6]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Allan Liska (May 19)
- Re: Re[6]: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product) Ralph Doncaster (May 19)
- Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product Scott Francis (May 17)