Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
From: Charley Hamilton <chamilto () uci edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:36:52 -0800
> Perhaps I'm not aware of it, but is there an "authorized user/service" database on the internet? I must have missed that.> Authorized users are told they are authorized users. Where?!?
So portscanning is the generally accepted method of discovering whatservices any given machine offers? And this is the way that everyone should determine whether or not there is a service being offered to them?
I was under the impression that resources (not just 'net, in general) were private unless declared public. Has something drasticsally changedsince I was last taught about these matters? Authorized users of the supercomputing center at UCSD are notified of their authority when they
successfully apply for an account there. The fact that some moron leavesa port open accepting unencrypted telnet connections and otherwise fails to properly secure the system is not an invitation for a visit. Why would you be port scanning to see if the SCC offers unencrypted telnet unless you are:
- tasked by the SCC (or their security group) with identifying vulnerabilities - the university performing routine security screening - an intruder seeking access I get that a port scan is not an attack. I don't get why a generic user should be portscanning. I get that it's possible, even that it's probably legal short of explicit notice to the contrary.> I would argue that you're wrong. Anonymous FTP is a very frequent occurrance on the internet and it's not unreasonable to expect that CNN might have an anonymous FTP site for content. What, exactly, makes you think that it's an unreasonable service to use?
The particular choice of FTP was a poor one. I agree that anonymous FTP is quite common. However, how did you find out about the anonymous FTP sites you use (e.g. kernel.org)? By portscanning for them? I was able tofind gnu's ftp site without a port scan. I looked at their "front door" (website) and found out about it. It seems that if a service is intendedto be public, it will be *published*. How it is published is up to the *owner*, not
the self-declared potential user.
Assuming that my interpretation of your writing is correct,you would support unsolicited bulk email.
> Actually, I'm not the original poster, but I'd have to say that unsolicited e-mail is just fine. I don't have a problem with people just sending me e-mail. What I have a problem with is people hacking into systems and converting them into SPAM relays.
So you support unsolicited bulk email as long as no hacking was committedin generating it? Are you defining the act of hacking the system as creating the difference between SPAM and acceptable unsolicited bulk email? Different people, different opinions.
I will grant unsolicited email is okay. However, unsolicited bulk email isthe electronic equivalent of unsolicited physical mail. It is a drag on the mail system (physical or electronic).
I certainly agree this discussion has drifted quite far afield. I don't debate the potential for *legitimate* uses of port scans. I just debate whether a legitimate use of port scans as a means of generally profiling a box. Why do you as a random stranger need to know what services a given box offers? Charley -- Charles Hamilton, PhD EIT Faculty Fellow Department of Civil and Phone: 949.824.3752 Environmental Engineering FAX: 949.824.2117 University of California, Irvine Email: chamilto () uci edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------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:
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned], (continued)
- 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: 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)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 19)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Yvan Boily (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Murad Talukdar (Mar 19)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 18)