I remember back in '00 when Norman Richards wrote:
> > Using what I assume to be your rationale, which I notice that you do
> > not address at all on your web site, then I would be justified using
> > SATAN or some other network security tool to probe your network
> > without your permission with the justification that if your network
> > is insecure, then it might pose a threat to my network should
> > crackers happen to compromise yours. I hope that you would agree
> > with me that doing that would not be right at all. [...]
>
> Could you expand some on this? I'm not sure that I agree with your
> fundamental supposition here. I'm not saying I disagree - I'm just
> that the statement you make is not "obviously true" to me and requires
> some supporting arguments. (just curious)
Dunno, it seems to make sense to me. Which part are you confused
by: "Using ... compromise yours" or "I hope that ... at all" (or
neither). I can kind of see the latter one being more objectionable
than the former, but I want to make sure we're on the same
page before addressing anything . . .
Matt
--
/* Matt Sayler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- (512) 494-7360
"RFC 882 put the dot in .com." -- Christian Bauernfeind */
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
