nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:35:19 -0500
Once upon a time, Neil <kngspook () gmail com> said:
I think you are being a little naive. Port scans, while possibly used for malicious ends, can very often be benign.
That sounds naive to me. From what I've seen, the number of malicious scans is much greater than the number of benign scans. The vast majority of end users have no idea what a port scan is or how to run one (or how to make sense of the output if they saw one run). In any case, this isn't really about the port scan. This is about Covad claiming they cannot identify who had an IP 48 hours ago. What if it wasn't a port scan; what if it was a DoS attack, spamming bot, etc.? Do you think Covad would respond to a DMCA complaint like that? -- Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jim Popovitch (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles Wyble (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Marshall Eubanks (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Allen Simpson (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Martin Hannigan (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 14)