Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned]

From: Charles Otstot (charles.otstot_at_ncmail.net)
Date: 03/16/04

  • Next message: Mortis: "Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning" 
    Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:01:52 -0500
To: Jef Feltman <feltman@pacbell.net>, security-basics@securityfocus.com

    Jef Feltman wrote:

    >So if someone comes and knocks on your door at home you shoot them? Do you
    >consider them a criminal? No, you lock the door and windows.
    >
    >
    Jef,

    I think you are missing my position. It seems to me that this really
    wasn't a technical question, but rather a question of what a reasonable
    (as normally used in legal definitions) person would consider proper
    access. Such person need not be technical, in fact, imposing a technical
    definition ignores the more practical concern of property and privacy
    rights.
    Knocking on *a" door may be an innocent act, knocking on *all* my doors
    and windows (or as others have noted, testing to see whether they are
    locked) is a deliberately intrusive act. While it certainly doesn't
    merit shooting, I would, at the least, bar that person from knocking on
    my door again (absent a very good explanation of why they should not be
    prohibited from such).

    >If your host is on the internet I consider it public and knocking on the
    >door to see if the shop is open, is not a problem. If you do not want people
    >coming in the door lock it and give a key to those who need it.
    >
    I think you might have trouble convincing others that your actions do
    not pose a problem. Simply having a host on the Internet does not
    automatically mean that one has the right to see what might be
    *technically* available on that host as opposed as to what the host's
    owners intended to be available. To refer to your analogy, the shop
    owner does not (in general) have the responsibility to lock the door and
    provide those who need access with a key. Rather, outsiders have the
    responsibility (both moral and legal) to stay out unless invited in.

    >
    >Based on your statement no website should not be accessed by anyone other
    >than an employee. Sending E-Mail would be a violation also, as the port must
    >be checked to verify it can be opened to receive.
    >
    >
    No, I stated that permission does not necessarily have to be explicit,
    only that ordinary concepts of reasonableness should dictate what is and
    isn't proper access. I specificaaly used the example of a publicly
    accessible website to illustrate that reasonableness would say accessing
    such a site would be considered appropriate. If however, there is a link
    on the site that says "Employees Only" that is available (from a
    technical perspective), and a non-employee intentionally clicks on the
    link to see if he/she can access the page, a reasonable person (IMHO)
    would consider such access to be improper. As to email, access would be
    to a specific resource in repsonse to a specific, proper request.

    >Port scanning is not an attack it is probe.
    >
    This is merely semantics. The implied *intention* is the important piece
    of the puzzle, not whether any harm is actually inflicted by this
    specific act.

    > I have scanned many machines
    >that have tried to attack my machine trying to verify if it is an attack or
    >the host has been compromised. Unless the attack is currently in progress,
    >the host is almost always taken over by a hacker or virus. Scanning the host
    >allows me to find ports open that prove the host has been attacked and taken
    >over. Then I am able to inform the ISP or user of the problem. And not go
    >after some innocent user.
    >
    I agree more with the poster who stated that this is not appropriate
    behavior. You have the right to identify who is scanning you, blocking
    the scan and then informing their ISP.
    Anything beyond that is the purview of their ISP, the system
    administrator and/or the proper legal authorities.

    >
    >If a company runs a service on the internet they must place a lock on the
    >door to keep out the unwanted. Otherwise it is open to the public. Remember
    >there are private and public ip addresses. Public means anyone can access
    >them without freely unless they harm or steal from the host, just like the
    >store on the corner.
    >
    This is simply wrong. The responsibility lies with the person accessing
    the resource. Personal resoponsibility and (Western) morality dictate
    that one should not go where one is not invited. Just because you *can*
    access something doesn't mean it is alright for you to do so. This is
    precisely where couching one's arguments in technical terms deflects
    from the more important (and very real) issues of right and wrong.

    >
    >A port scan has never hurt any machine and never will. Only a poorly
    >configured host will be hacked. Just as a poorly locked house will be broken
    >into.
    >
    There is no such thing as an unhackable host, just as there is no such
    thing as a house which cannot be broken into. Remember, the perfect hack
    (like the perfect crime) has already occurred. The perpetrator was good
    enough that no one will ever know about it.

    >
    >jef
    >
    >
    Charlie

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off
    any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less
    to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.
    Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field
    pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills
    of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization.
    Visit us at:
    http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Next message: Mortis: "Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned]
      ... you lock the door and windows. ... If your host is on the internet I consider it public and knocking on the ... Port scanning is not an attack it is probe. ... someone else's network without permission. ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • Re: Slap n tickle
      ... and data flows to your front door, and then, you bring it into the ... The data flows to your door, and you check its content, and if you ... you bring it in to your host pc. ... Living room, den, bed room, garage, music room, kitchen, library ...
      (sci.physics)
    • RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned]
      ... Attaching a host to the internet is like opening your business ... you lock the door and windows. ... Knocking on *a" door may be an innocent act, ... accessible website to illustrate that reasonableness would say accessing ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned]
      ... you lock the door and windows. ... Sending E-Mail would be a violation also, as the port ... > Port scanning is not an attack it is probe. ... > the host has been compromised. ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • Re: Keyless entry problem - 1999 New Beetle
      ... lock, but the drivers door does not. ... The driver and passenger doors failing didn't ... motor lines to see if it would operate. ...
      (rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled)
    • Quantcast