Ed is 100% right, that stupid talking drives more people nuts then you
think. please cut that shit already.
peter
>From: Ed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Scans::Attacks (was: Call for self-Moderation)
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:30:18 -0400
>
>we're still talking about this?
>
>some people just don't get it. it's not that talking about port scanning
>is irrelevant, it's talking about what laws apply that is driving me
>*&#$(*&# crazy. can we PLEASE give it a rest?????
>
>At 05:42 PM 7/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Derek Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> ... Port scanning is often, though not
> >> always, a prelude to an attack.
> >> Firewalls are designed to stop attacks.
> >
> >A matter of semantics maybe, but firewalls are designed to minimize (or
> >hopefully negate) the _effects_ of an attack.
> >_Stopping_ the attack itself is only possible when the source is
>eliminated
> >(or quenched).
> >
> >> Now, wether or not the relationship is
> >> strong enough to warrant discussion, is
> >> largely a matter of opinion, in my opinion.
> >
> >With the above considered, there is a definite relevance between
>discussions
> >of port scanning response and firewalls. There are different forums that
> >could probably host such discussions as well, but the occasional innocent
> >question in this area does no harm here. (Provided it doesn't mutate
>into
> >The World's Longest Thread...)
> >
> >-GWP
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> >"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
>-
>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
