Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <bugtraq () planetcobalt net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:22:06 +0100
On 2004-03-18 Charley Hamilton wrote:
On 2004-03-17 Charley Hamilton wrote: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.I admit FTP was a poor choice. Detailed response in reply to Barry Fitzgerald. Were you also referring to something else?
It's just a hostname, nothing more, nothing less. In some cases the www server doesn't even have the www-prefix. In other cases it's name is chosen to represent its purpose (e.g. groups.google.com). So the hostname does in no way tell you if you are permitted to use it or not. But authentication does. 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)
- 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)