Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product

[Scott Francis <darkuncle () darkuncle net>]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:14:37PM -0700, briareos () otherlands net said:
[snip]
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:22:39PM -0700, PJ wrote:
> > > Even more, I would hate to see the advocation of a hostile reaction to 
> > > what, so far, is not considered a crime.
> >
> > Feel free to go portscan some US military and federal interest networks, 
> > then. If it's not a crime, you shouldnt have any problems scanning them.
>
> If it's a crime, someone should have no problem citing the code.  If
> it's not a crime, than I am guilty of nothing and should have nothing
> to fear.  Of course, in the present political climate, that's
> probably not the case, but it doesn't make it right.  However, there
> is legal precident that port scanning is not illegal.  There are

Just because something is not technically illegal (yet) doesn't make it
justifiable, either.

> always going to be people who are going to probe and poke, as long as
> there is no direct harm, who cares?  Sorry, the days of people sitting

There will always be people who probe physical security of banks and other
institutions, too. Such folk usually find themselves explaining their actions
to the nice officers in short order.

Just because something happens doesn't mean it should be condoned, or
accepted as unavoidable.

> in nice straight lines, only doing what you want them to do and only
> going where you want them to go are not yet upon us.

Agreed (I doubt that day will ever come).

> http://online.securityfocus.com/news/126

There is a difference between what's legally acceptable and what's ethical or
even prudent.

> PJ

-- 
Scott Francis                   darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager          sfrancis@ [work:]         t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7              illum oportet crescere me autem minui

Attachment: _bin
Description: