I'll go with 2) Probing is always OK (unless it becomes a
denial of service). That's why we have crack, et al.
The web will be a better place if the good guys "check the
doors" extensively. Otherwise, you're relying on a variant
of security by obscurity.
Other possible bumper stickers...
If probing is outlawed, only the outlaws will have probes.
If you don't want probes, keep off the net.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Jeff Millar" <jeff@wa1hco.mv.com>; "George Bonser"
<grep@shorelink.com>; "Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:35 PM
Subject: RE: vger rejecting messages from mediaone (ORBS is evil)
>
> > A very convincing line of argument, _if_ you assume that a mail
> > probe of a net service constitutes a search. It's closer
> > to looking a public behavior than an invasive search.
>
> The best analogy I can think of is that it's like twisting and pushing on
> someone's door to see if it's locked. The problem is really that you only
> have three choices:
>
> 1) A probe for a vulnerability is wrong no matter what. This makes ORBS
> immoral.
>
> 2) A probe for a vulnerability is okay. This makes probing completely
> justified and makes it very hard to deal with people who probe for
> vulnerabilities in order to exploit them.
>
> 3) A probe for a vulnerability is okay or not okay depending upon a
variety
> of factors including what the prober did or intended to do with the
results
> and what the effect of the probe is on the probed site.
>
> Unfortunately, it pretty much has to be the third option.
>
> DS
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST