nanog mailing list archives
Re: netscan.org update
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:29:47 -0400
At 12:36 AM 9/27/2000 -0400, John Fraizer wrote: >I do understand where you may draw that conclusion however. Testing >for the presence of gas (smurf amplifiers) with a sniffer (single ICMP >echo-request scan) is NOT the same as simply throwing a match at the gas >main (waiting for an attack). > >So, the simple answer to your question is no. Especially since the source address is not spoofed. >John Fraizer TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- Re: netscan.org update, (continued)
- Re: netscan.org update Majdi S. Abbas (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Majdi S. Abbas (Sep 25)
- RE: netscan.org update Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Troy Davis (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- FW: netscan.org update Roeland M.J. Meyer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 27)