Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Port scans legal, judge says
Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus 2000-12-18

Federal court finds that scanning a network doesn't cause damage, or threaten public health and safety.

Comments Mode:
Lame 2000-12-19
Anonymous (1 replies)
Lame (a reply by VC3) 2000-12-20
david.dunn (at) vc3 (dot) com [email concealed] (2 replies)
Extra Lame 2000-12-20
anonymous (1 replies)
Extra Lame (Another reply from VC3) 2000-12-21
david.dunn (at) vc3 (dot) com [email concealed]
Lame (a reply by VC3) 2000-12-21
Dazed and Confused (1 replies)
Lame (a reply by VC3) 2000-12-21
david.dunn (at) vc3 (dot) com [email concealed]
Get a grip 2000-12-19
Chip
Good for him. 2000-12-19
Your headline is misleading 2000-12-19
EJ (4 replies)
re: Your headline is misleading 2000-12-19
ThwartedEfforts (2 replies)
re: Your headline is misleading 2000-12-19
Sleeper (1 replies)
re: Your headline is misleading 2000-12-20
Anonymouse (1 replies)
Your headline is misleading 2000-12-19
merk_man (1 replies)
Your headline is misleading 2000-12-19
Ray L (4 replies)
Good guy getting blamed... 2000-12-19
anon-coward
Legality based on Assumtion 2000-12-19
Tiff
Regardless of the purpose of the scan, no inherent damage was caused. The suit should have never even been brought to trial.

Making port scanning illegal based on the assumption that the person doing it may or may not have ill gotten intentions is ludicrous. Purpose should not be guessed at, or punished based on belief on intentions. That is equivalent to suing a person for intent to break into a car because they have a coat hanger with them. Until the actual event occurs, nothing illegal has taken place.

If someone is serious about hacking into a system, they will do a lot more than just a simple port scan. They should be punished for an actual breech, not something so basic as a ping.

Port Scanning itself does have a viable business use. Data Security Analyst use that among many other methods of integrity testing. Making it illegal would make their jobs harder, and hackers will ill gotten intentions jobs a lot easier. As the saying goes: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/126/4078#4078
Your headline is misleading 2000-12-20
Giezr
Your headline is misleading 2007-03-09
Sady.Org
Re: Your headline is misleading 2007-03-09
Sady.Org
judges decision 2000-12-19
jeff_schmitz (at) enron (dot) net [email concealed]
So if some one knocks on my door... 2000-12-19
garak (at) fastvcd (dot) com [email concealed] (1 replies)
Just don't do it. 2000-12-19
Anonymous Coward (1 replies)
Just don't do it. 2000-12-19
iNDiGO
Port Scan 2000-12-19
Bear
Interesting 2000-12-20
mickey
American Justice System 2000-12-20
b00tl3g
VC3 is Full of Crap! 2000-12-20
JamesF, web developer
Things not mentioned in the article 2000-12-20
A Fly on the Wall
Ringing a Doorbell or Checking for an Open Window? 2000-12-20
apersonwhosees thisalot
VC3 2000-12-20
Matthew F. Caldwell, CISSP <mattc (at) guarded (dot) net [email concealed]>
Wrong 2000-12-20
William Black (1 replies)
Wrong 2000-12-20
aardwolfe (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]
Scanning illegal? 2000-12-20
vcloud
Doing his job. 2000-12-20
Bob C
Mistakes 2000-12-21
djmad (1 replies)
Mistakes .... 2000-12-22
cert (at) fvsh (dot) de [email concealed]
Intent is really the issue 2000-12-21
Scott Craig <scraig@MIfortune500(fake).com>
Clarifications 2000-12-21
JAG (Just Another Geek)







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus