Scott Harney wrote: ... > I'm NOT exaggerating the risks. For crying out loud. read what > I've been saying. John Hebert would not do the port scan on the page > because he didn't want to click through the indemnification clause. > All I was pointing out was that this was pretty standard stuff for > a site that's gonna do a port scan. And that's because there's > always the possibility that one could argue the port scan caused > a crash or some other problem. I ENCOURAGED people to do the port > scan. It a REALLY GOOD IDEA to see what a port scan of your IP > looks like from a remote site. All I was pointing out was the > justificaton for wanting a click through agreement on a scan as per > John's request. Sheesh.
This is all due to a miscommunication and ignorance on my part. I mistakenly interpreted the site's indemnification clause as a license to hack my box, since I don't yet trust that site. And my ignorance of the fact that port scans may cause system downtime further confused the issue. Let's all step back, take a breather, and chalk it up to destroying my ignorance. :) John Hebert
