On Sun 10 Apr 2022 at 21:29:30 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 08:19:52PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > [...] > > > > forbidden of trying to do network scans, but the sysadmin wants to > > > know. I can't blame him (I'm on speaking terms with him ;-) > > > > Not forbidden? > > > > I know a corporate network or two which would get you disconnected > > if you do that : > > > > Disconnected? That doesn't sound permissive. > > In my book, forbidden would mean *you* get disconnected from the > institution. Your machine disconnected from the network and having > to do "pretty please" to the admin... I'd say "fair enough". Wouldn't > be *my* policy, but I can live with that.
I wouldn't say "fair enough", but the dictatorial and irrational decisions of sysadmins might oblige me to live with that. Just as I live with the agents of survellance capitalism. > > > > I was once reprimamaned by Amazon for nmapping my own network. That's > > > > what I call real devotion to stamping out network discovery. > > > > > > Now now. No reprimands. The firewall notices and disables that one port, > > > That's all. > > > > I was controlled by an inaminte agency? Is that any better than being > > controlled by an agent of survellance capitalism? Either way, my actions > > are monitored. My communications are intercepted and censorship applied. > > Could be worse, believe me. At a lower protocol level [1] it's even part > of the protocol, i.e. mandatory :) OK, I know when I am beaten into the ground. :) -- Brian.