Re: Scan for anonymous ftp...
From: larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.orgDate: 01/31/02
- Next message: Greg Hennessy: "Re: CheckPoint 4.1 vs. NG"
- Previous message: Greg Hennessy: "Re: CheckPoint 4.1 vs. NG"
- In reply to: P.c: "Scan for anonymous ftp..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.org Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:23:59 +0000 (UTC)
P.c <micael.ka@telia.com> wrote:
: If someone is scanning for anonymous Ftp:s is that ok? I read one RFC (don't
: remember the number..) that said if you have an anonymous Ftp its the same
: as go ahead and d/l or upload if that is permitted.
Most ftp sites have a policy. Read it carefully first.
: As portscanning usually is not something that firewalladmins and ISP:s are
: so fond off does anyone know if its "wrong" to scan a broad range of ip:s on
: port 21 if you are only looking for anonymous Ftp:s (which of course is
: impossible to see in the firewall) ??
: And if its "wrong" (according to the netiquette or the law in whatever
: country) is it "written" down (RFC??)
: Is it okay to do this in let say U.S.A or any other country?
no, it's not ok. scanning for ftp is considered equally to port scanning.
We've seen alot of automated ftp scripts that finds an anonymous ftp server
with write permissions, tags it with a "unerasable" direcory structure and
moves on to the next ip address.
After a while you start getting warez or similar stuff in this directory
structure. This is not legal and is usually reported by the firewall admin
when it is discovered.
This often also chews up all of the victims bandwidth.
Lars
- Next message: Greg Hennessy: "Re: CheckPoint 4.1 vs. NG"
- Previous message: Greg Hennessy: "Re: CheckPoint 4.1 vs. NG"
- In reply to: P.c: "Scan for anonymous ftp..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
