if i typo and enter your ip in my browser, thats illegal?
theres no way to tell the intentions of a received packet.. is it research, is
it hostile, is it an infected machine, is it an error
whilst its prudent to assume that anything received unexpectedly is malicious,
that doesnt necessarily
> John K. Lerchey wrote:
> The problem is that many of their "random targets" consider
> the probes to be either malicious in nature, or outright
> attacks. As a result of this, we, of course, get complaints.
[me puts the politician/opportunist suit
on. It's election year, after all].
The one thi
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> i think it would be useful if the entry one got by
>
>whois -h whois.(arin|apnic|lacnic|ripe).net X
>
> returned, among the usual bumph, a comment such as
>
>experiment being conducted, see http://Y/
The PTR record for the IP(s) doing the testing i
Gee. If one takes this approach, all research is criminal. The fact is, some
amount of important science and research and some larger amount of silly
research is going on as a result of these probes.
An earlier response stated that a web server should be run on the
transmitting host. This is pro
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:37:55PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote:
> To the original poster and others: Do host a web server on port 80 of the
> machines involved in the probe. Name the machines after your project (do not
> call them "www" or else people might indeed think it is a compromised
> machine
: [[.. $ mount /dev/soapbox # you have been warned. ..]]
Yes...
: *HOW* is one supposed to tell a 'benign' probe from a 'hostile' one,
: when it is addressed to a machine that doesn't exist, or to a 'service'
: that doesn't exist on an existant machine?
Who cares? It's your network. I
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Bonomi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs. Annoying Other
> Executive summary:
>Method of choice: "Get Permission.
> To the original poster and others: Do host a web server on port 80 of the
> machines involved in the probe.
if i think i might be under attack from machine X, i would definitely
not launch a browser to X, especially if i ran internet exploder.
i think it would be useful if the entry one got by
I echo many of the sentiments expressed already in trashing your response,
and want to add the following:
On 2004-08-06T15:05-0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
) If you want to claim that the testing "isn't wrong" because it only costs
) any testee an 'insignificant' amount, You better be prepared to a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert
Bonomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Because the -only- 'authorized use is those things whiich I expressly
let past my firewall. Ergo, if the firewall blocks it, it _IS_ an
'unauthorized access' attempt.
Do you publish the firewall rules, so that people can m
Robert Bonomi wrote:
<>*HOW* is one supposed to tell a 'benign' probe from a 'hostile' one,
when it is addressed to a machine that doesn't exist, or to a 'service'
that doesn't exist on an existant machine?
With all the 'overtly hostile' traffic out there, why on earth would
anyone
consider that,
On Friday, 2004-08-06 at 15:05 EST, Robert Bonomi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Executive summary:
> Method of choice: "Get Permission. *FIRST*."
> If that fails, try: "Buy Access."
> If =that= fails, then "Don't Do it!"
So, I have to get permission before trying to communicate with a
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:05:58PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Whereupon, 18 USC 1030 (b), becomes *very* relevant, given the language
> of 18 USC (a) (2) (C). The minimum penalty is 'up to a year imprisonment'.
> given any 'extenuating circumstances' and it could be up to 20 years.
Robert,
perhaps those more appreciative of the operational utility
of current networking research, and with some clue as to
the difficulties of gathering data to achieve the results
on which we operators are building our networks, would be
less strident in their attacks on experimental packets
randy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs Annoying Others
> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: John K Lerchey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs Annoying Others
>
>
> Hi NANOG folks,
>
> We have a s
15 matches
Mail list logo
