|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Disabling QAZ (was Re: Port 139 scans)
What about saying that the port 7759 connection is an attempt to authorize a user connecting to your port 139? Jason --- Jason Slagle - CCNA - CCDA Network Administrator - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio - [email protected] - [email protected] - WHOIS JS10172 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GE d-- s:+ a-- C++ UL+++ P--- L+++ E- W- N+ o-- K- w--- O M- V PS+ PE+++ Y+ PGP t+ 5 X+ R tv+ b+ DI+ D G e+ h! r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Mike Lewinski wrote: > > > Yep. The problem with that is that current laws on the books (in the US > > at least) make this an illegal solution. If memory serves me correctly, > > the one I'm thinking about is worded something like: > > > > "...any person who without authorization, accesses, modifies, deletes or > > destroys..." > > > > The penalties are pretty stiff too. The best of intentions don't negate > > the fact that it's illegal. > > In some jurisdictions, the "necessity defense" _may_ allow for this type > of conduct (especially if the normal channels of redress have failed). > > This is about the worst mangling of English I've seen in a while, but > you'll see the point I hope: > > "The defendant's need to avoid the harm to [himself] [herself] or to the > person or > property of another clearly outweighed, according to ordinary standards of > reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law which the > defendant is accused of violating." > > Mike > -- > Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. > > >
|