Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned]
From: ~Kevin Davis³ <computerguy () cfl rr com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 06:46:26 -0500
I have mail box out front for communication and a phone. People can call me. But them attempting to find other ways into my house is tresspassing. And such activity can indicate an attempt to break in is forthcoming.This analogy was born without legs. A portscan is a means of finding out what services you are providing to the public. Nothing more. Nothing less.
No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid analogy. While it is encumbant upon an individual that they should know what windows they have unlocked or ports they have open by a service to secure themselves, it does not mean that they always will. If their window is unlocked that doesn't mean that everyone who knows or finds out that the window is unlocked is freely invited inside. Expecially if the person who owns the house doesn't realize that the window is unlocked at the time. Similarly, if a port is open on a box, that doesn't mean everyone is free to use it as they please. Particularly if the person doesn't realize that the port is even open. By using your own logic, if one were to unknowingly fall victim to a Trojan and a hacker port scanned that box and found the Trojan holding a port open, it is perfectly legitimate and legal for that hacker to make use of that Trojan and take control of the box.
To sum up: a portscan may or may not indicate a forthcoming attack, but it is *not* an attack in itself.The point is debatable.Obviously.I consider it enough of an indicator that I take it seriously. Sometimes, it isn't even a person doing the attack, but an infected machine. More than one virus performs portscans.Sure. But still the portscan is not the attack. I already said that it might indicate a forthcoming attack, so there's nothing wrong with taking it seriously, but I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Provide a realistic scenario where an anonymous outsider from the Internet has a legitimate reason to port scan a system. Sure there some legitimate reasons, like Road Runner checking to see if you're complying with their TOS or if a related entity is doing a security check against a box to see what ports are open, but I would contend the vast majority of the time, if you are trying to access a box from the Internet, you are going to know beforehand what services are available from it. Rare will be the occasion where some Joe Schmoo will want access to your box and not know how to get in and need to port scan it to find out. If they don't know, it is extremely likely that they don't need to know and shouldn't be accessing the box. An open port should not automatically be interpreted as an open invitation to the public to come on in. Example: I want to be able to Remote Desktop to my computer at home while I am traveling, so I set up Remote Desktop and forward the port on my router to that box so I can. This is not the equivalent to me freely offering everyone on the Internet Remote Desktop access to my home computer. It's no-one's business that I'm doing that besides myself and possibly my ISP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning, (continued)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning David Gillett (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 19)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Yvan Boily (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Murad Talukdar (Mar 19)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Derek Schaible (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 19)
- RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] David Gillett (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] ~Kevin Davis³ (Mar 18)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Phil Brammer (Mar 19)
- Automatically encrypting and signing to a group of people w/ Outlook 2003? Mark G. Spencer (Mar 19)
- Re: Dos Attack Fernando Gont (Mar 15)
- RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Jef Feltman (Mar 15)
- RE: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 16)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Phil Brammer (Mar 17)
- Re: FW: Legal? Road Runner proactive scanning.[Scanned] Bryan S. Sampsel (Mar 17)
