nanog mailing list archives
Re: netscan.org update
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:53:34 -0400
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 06:39:37PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it is ok to blindly scan other peoples networks without their permission for smurf amplifiers and post the results, while doing the same for SMTP servers has met with heavy criticism?
A large part of it is probably that very few administrators set of warning bells on a single ping, but a substantial fraction of mail administrators get floods of e-mail warnings from the mail testing programs, wasting their time and energy. When you scan properly locked down boxes in a way that fills an admins mailbox they get testy. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Current thread:
- Re: netscan.org update, (continued)
- Re: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Henry R. Linneweh (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Daniel Senie (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Henry R. Linneweh (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update John Payne (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update John Payne (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Bill Fumerola (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Simon Lyall (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Michael Shields (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Greg A. Woods (Sep 25)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Bradley Dunn (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Charles Sprickman (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) Tony Tauber (Sep 25)