Ron DuFresne writes:
 > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Derek Martin wrote:
 > 
 > > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
 > > 
 > > > > Agreed.  As I said, I have no problem busting people that actually DO
 > > > > something.  I see no problem with using evidence of a port scan as
 > > > > establishing a pattern, once and ACTUAL BREAK-IN has occured, but it is
 > > > > not in-and-of-itself harmful or dangerous to network security.
 > > > 
 > > > Portscanning *can* be harmful to the network equipment, vigorous
 > > > portscanning *can* make network-based equipment unavailable to legitimate
 > > > users, and poorly-written stacks in such equipment can die when handed
 > > > fragmented packets typically used for "stealth scanning." 
 > > 
 > > Again, this problem is your VENDOR's fault.  Properly written TCP/IP
 > > stacks will not have this problem.  Complain to your vendor.  A port scan
 > > doesn't do anything that a legitimate user doesn't do (except that it
 > > does it to a bunch of ports instead of just one), so your hardware is
 > > BROKEN.  
 > 
 > 
 > Derek, this is incorrect, and not a good attempt to avoid the point<s>
 > made by Paul and others here on this topic also.  What legitimate user
 > sends only fin or syn packets to a broad range of ports?  Which protocal
 > or tcp/ip service implements null scans to achieve it's means?  Scanners
 > form packets, fragments of, and combinations of packets that do not
 > constitute normal, legitimate usage patterns, and thus most leave a
 > distiinctive footprint in the logs of the systems being scanned.  Many of
 > the DOS and intrusion methods recnetly used do much the same thing, taking
 > advantage of previously unknown broken tcp/ip stacks and services.  It's
 > also when vulnerabilities like this are noted in these security related
 > lists that the incidence of 'non-authorized' scans probing for such
 > weaknesses increase.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > 
 > Ron DuFresne

Do you think that buffer overflows are not a bug?  

< paul
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]

Reply via email to