Re: Stealth vs. Blocked

From: SysAdm (wjones@sitesmith.com)
Date: 04/10/03


From: "SysAdm" <wjones@sitesmith.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:18:59 +0000 (UTC)


"Art Kopp" <artnpeg@claymania.com> wrote in message
news:161b9v0963r7r01jm5he3u7oe45p5n1vj0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:44:45 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
> <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:50:12 GMT, Art Kopp spoketh
> >
> >>
> >>When I looked at your web site illustration concerning this issue, it
> >>wasn't clear to me that a lack of reponse proves a PC is there. What
> >>if the PC is powered down, or not connected? What if the IP # being
> >>scanned by the hacker isn't assigned at the moment?
> >
> >In either event, the router defined as the gateway router for the IP
> >address in question will respond with an ICMP host unreachable message.

Art

your points about the IP address not being assigned or the PC powered down
are perfectly valid reasons as to why stealth is a VALID security measure.

the lack of a response CLEARLY does NOT proove that a device exists on that
IP address.

SysAdm