Arbor Networks DoS defense product

Thu May 16 16:47:45 UTC 2002

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:35:51AM -0700, darkuncle at darkuncle.net said:
[snip]
> > http://online.securityfocus.com/news/126
> 
> There is a difference between what's legally acceptable and what's ethical or
> even prudent.

One thing that I may not have made clear: I am not saying port scanning is
necessarily unethical or foolish at all times, or that it has no place in the
network operator's toolkit. It obviously does. However, scans tend to be a
very reliable precursor to malicious activity. Perhaps a graduated landmine
response that first mails the technical contact for the netblock in question
after a certain threshold has been crossed, and then a blackhole after the next
threshold is crossed (assuming no response from the contact attempt).

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020516/049f5b32/attachment.sig>