[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: port scan

On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:56:57AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: 

> Philipp Schulte <p.schulte@matrix.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
> [...]
> >>>On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:35:27PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: 
> >>>>Philipp Schulte wrote:
> >>>>>But what kind of pressure can $your_provider put on a portscanner
> >>>>>from $evil_provider? 
> >>>>
> >>>>Domain-level blocking of...mail, news, DNS....
> [...]
> >If you say that portscanning isn't necessariy evil, how can you
> >suggest "Domain-level blocking of...mail, news, DNS...."?
> Hmm. You asked "what kind of pressure can [my provider] put on [evil
> guy's provider]", and Karsten answered - that is indeed the sort of
> pressure one provider can put on another (RBL [1], UDP [2], etc.). Your
> question wasn't about what kind of pressure providers *should* put on
> each other, or about portscanning in particular, and I didn't read the
> answer that way.

No, that's not what I asked. I was not talking about pressure on an
other provider but pressure on a customer of an other provider. Makes
a difference to me. I also wrote: 
"Show me the ISP that is willing to take these steps because of a
portscanning script-kiddie. portsanning is not even illegal here in
It just doesn't make sense to me to complain about some portscanner at
_my_ provider. Since my provider is a university I know that they
wouldn't be happy if I bug them with logfiles. If portscanning is not
even illegal, how can I expect my provider to take steps against
it? But the other guy's provider might have prohibited that in their
contract with their customers so they can ban this portscanner.

Reply to: