On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:19:00PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [snip] > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Johannes B. Ullrich wrote: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Even more, I would hate to see the advocation of a hostile reaction to > > > > what, so far, is not considered a crime. > > > > I agree. Scanning is no crime. But blocking isn't a crime either. > > Agreed. But this blocking still will do no good. My previous > questions still stand. What about timing? What about breaking up > segements of the network to be scanned by different hosts? How many > hits on the linemines constitute blocking? Are you blocking hosts or > networks? Either way, what about dynamic ips? What about scans done > from different networks other than that which the supposed attacker is > originating from. Universitys, unsecured wireless lans, etc.
So because we can't implement a perfect solution, let's do nothing at all about the problem? > PJ -- Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
msg01825/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
