North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

(fwd) Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product

  • From: PJ
  • Date: Wed May 15 21:01:06 2002

Forgot to include nanog

----- Forwarded message from PJ <[email protected]> -----

> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:50:01 -0700
> From: PJ <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product
> To: Clayton Fiske <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: PJ <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
> 
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:22:39PM -0700, PJ wrote:
> > > Are you now operating under the premise that scans != anything but the
> > > prelude to an attack?  Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread, but
> > > I would hate to think any legitimate scanning of a network or host
> > > would result in a false positive.  Even more, I would hate to see the
> > > advocation of a hostile reaction to what, so far, is not considered a
> > > crime.
> > 
> > So you can think of a perfectly legitimate reason to scan someone else's
> > netblocks on specific TCP ports?
> > 
> > -c
> > 
> > 
> 
> Has no one ever tested firewall rules from external networks?  The
> fact remains is that a scan != an attack. 
> 
> PJ
> 
> -- 
> The worst thing one can do is not to try, to be aware of what one
> wants and not give in to it, to spend years in silent hurt wondering
> if something could have materialized -- and never knowing.
> 					-- David Viscott