North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Disabling QAZ (was Re: Port 139 scans)
- From: Jason Slagle
- Date: Sat Sep 30 11:16:59 2000
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
- raistlin@tacorp.net - jslagle@toledolink.com - 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.
>
>
>
|
