Unruh wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: > >> Unruh wrote: >>> Tim Shoppa <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On Dec 30, 12:32=A0pm, Unruh <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Tim Shoppa wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 10:47 pm, [email protected] (Danny Mayer) wrote: >>>>>>>> Antonio, >>>>>>>> If you are really from nic.br please use your email address from that >>>>>>>> domain. It is unacceptable to use a gmail account for such notificati= >>>> ons. >>>>>>>> Danny >>>>>>> This is usenet, where anyone can set their "from" address to anything >>>>>>> they want, and posting with an E-mail address that is adequately spam- >>>>>>> filtered makes perfect sense. >>>>>>> I'm not sure there's any real requirement that anyone has to announce >>>>>>> any particular e-mail address to run a NTP survey. He made the >>>>>>> methodology clear, said where the queries will be coming from, and I >>>>>>> think it's good that surveys continue and, like Antonio and his >>>>>>> collaborators do, they make the details and results public. >>>>>>> Tim. >>>>>> There is no requirement that he even announce his survey! =A0It is polit= >>>> e >>>>>> for him to do so but no more than that. >>>>> Well, Under various laws he may be guilty of hacking/cracking/illegal use >>>>> fo computer time/... unless he gets permission. There has at least been a >>>>> strong feeling by many expressed that access does not imply permission. I= >>>> e, >>>>> just because the ntp port is open does not mean that anyone has permissio= >>>> n >>>>> to use that port (eg is port scanning legal?). It is of course a complete= >>>> legal can of worms. >>>>> But announcing the survey here might be useable as a partial defense =A0i= >>>> f >>>>> the worms wriggled out of the can. >>>> Bill - >>>> NTP surveys are good things. NTP Surveys that publish their results >>>> are even better. A NTP client is a server. Port scanning is bad. >>> I do not dispute that and I suspect that any court would take that position >>> as well. I am hypothesising that one of the reasons they announced the >>> survey was as one more brick in a possible defence against some prosecutor >>> in some jurisdiction accussing them of hacking. >>> >>> There have been interminable arguments as to whether or not port scanning >>> should be criminalised. That would almost certainly extend to this kind of >>> survey. I think it would be a very bad idea to criminalise port scanning, >>> but many people think otherwise. >>> > >> Port scanning, very occasionally, has legitimate purposes. I once used >> a port scanning program to find out what port(s) a copier/printer used. >> It did not use the standard port that I expected but the port scan >> told me what I wanted to know. > >> Now port scanning something that is not yours, if not criminal, is >> certainly extremely bad manners and suggests that you have nefarious >> intentions. It goes on all the time! I have a router/firewall that > > Well, the ntp survey is a "port scan " (one port, but getting no trivial > information from it). Any law would have a hard time differentiating > between the "port scanning that is not yours" and the ntp survey. >
Enjoy your tantrum then! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
