Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <bugtraq () planetcobalt net>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:51:29 +0100
On 2004-03-17 Charley Hamilton wrote:
There is no place to publish open ports, accepted protocols, and authorized users.Authorized users are told they are authorized users. If you are not an authorized user, what difference does it make what protocols are accepted?
Then how do I become an authorized user of www.google.com? [...]
The "reasonable man" hypothesis applies to connecting to a system to which authorization is in doubt. Would a reasonable man conclude that http://www.cnn.com is an acceptable connection in the absence of explicit permission? I would say yes, he would. Would a reasonable man conclude that ftp://www.cnn.com is an acceptable connection in the absence of explicit permission? I would argue no, he would not. What's the difference? HTTP is generally accepted to be a public connection, in the sense that it is intended as a shared resource, to be accessible to all. FTP is not generally accepted as such, regardless of what electronic storefront happens to be offering the service.
That's simply not true.
Similarly, www.foo.com is generally expected to be a public http server. Therefore, making an HTTP connection to that server is reasonable. accounts-payable.foo.com is *not* generally expected to be a public http server. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that it would be offering public http services. Any such services would reasonably be intended for authorized users only.
No. Regards Ansgar Wiechers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization. Visit us at: http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] James P. Saveker (Mar 11)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 12)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 15)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 16)
- Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Mortis (Mar 17)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 17)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning ~Kevin DavisĀ³ (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 23)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 15)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Mortis (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 22)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 12)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Derek Schaible (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charles Otstot (Mar 22)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning David Gillett (Mar 19)