Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
From: Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:29:30 -0500
David Gillett wrote:
Semantics - I was trying to stay within the scope of the previous messages, which were straying wildly away from port scanning.Portscans don't discover services, just ports.
Anyway, with the latest version of nmap, a port scan can do service discovery. It all depends on what the returning packets include. Again, this is semantical and not relevant to the topic at hand, really.
If CNN wants to provide an anonymous FTP service, they're likely to put it on ftp://ftp.cnn.com . www.cnn.com should almost certainlybe dedicated to web service, and any FTP service running on that box is *probably* only intended for distribution of content updates to the web site; if it accepts anonymous connections, that's more likely by mistake than by design. "Reasonable man" says that if they have an intended anonymous FTP site, that's not where it is.
My point was that hostname doesn't dictate accessability. If I name my website http://www.yournotauthorized.com, your "reasonable man" hypothesis would dictate that people should never visit my website -- what if my business is Not Authorized Security, Inc. and I focused on detecting intrusions?
My point isn't whether anon FTP servers should be placed on web servers nor whether that's a good or normal idea. Suffice it to say that it happens frequently enough and that enough website anf FTP server FQDNs *DON'T* begin with www that your "reasonable man" assertions are left in a situation that is far too vague to be useful.
By that thinking, http://isc.sans.org/ or ftp://mirrors.kernel.org should be offlimits, but they aren't.
Also, the assumption you're making is that "reasonable man" understands the standards that we're talking about. A "reasonable man" (aka, most users) can still be both reasonable and ignorant. Expecting them to understand this concept when we ourselves don't follow it is unreasonable.
-Barry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ~Kevin Davis³ (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Mar 23)
- RE: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Mortis (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 18)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charley Hamilton (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Barry Fitzgerald (Mar 22)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Derek Schaible (Mar 19)
- Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning Charles Otstot (Mar 22)
- 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)
