Re: Scan of TCP 552-554
From: Rodrigo Barbosa (rodrigob_at_suespammers.org)
Date: 08/02/03
- Previous message: gil.young_at_sycoleman.com: "RE: WORM_MIMAIL.A Anyone have any info on what this does yet?"
- In reply to: Dave Paris: "RE: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Next in thread: Dave Paris: "Re: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Reply: Dave Paris: "Re: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:10:19 -0300 To: Dave Paris <dparis@w3works.com>
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:31:26PM -0400, Dave Paris wrote:
> Not to point out the wholly obvious or anything, but...
>
> Regardless of your response to the portscan, by the time you react it has
> already "used your link" and cost you bandwidth.
You are MOSTLY correct. But I have had cases where someone kept
portscanning me for almost a week.
-- Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@suespammers.org> "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: gil.young_at_sycoleman.com: "RE: WORM_MIMAIL.A Anyone have any info on what this does yet?"
- In reply to: Dave Paris: "RE: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Next in thread: Dave Paris: "Re: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Reply: Dave Paris: "Re: Scan of TCP 552-554"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]