we're still talking about this?
some people just don't get it. it's not that talking about port scanning
is irrelevant, it's talking about what laws apply that is driving me
*&#$(*&# crazy. can we PLEASE give it a rest?????
At 05:42 PM 7/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Derek Martin wrote:
>>
>> ... Port scanning is often, though not
>> always, a prelude to an attack.
>> Firewalls are designed to stop attacks.
>
>A matter of semantics maybe, but firewalls are designed to minimize (or
>hopefully negate) the _effects_ of an attack.
>_Stopping_ the attack itself is only possible when the source is eliminated
>(or quenched).
>
>> Now, wether or not the relationship is
>> strong enough to warrant discussion, is
>> largely a matter of opinion, in my opinion.
>
>With the above considered, there is a definite relevance between discussions
>of port scanning response and firewalls. There are different forums that
>could probably host such discussions as well, but the occasional innocent
>question in this area does no harm here. (Provided it doesn't mutate into
>The World's Longest Thread...)
>
>-GWP
>
>
>
>-
>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
