Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Vista
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)
Hey folks, in case anyone wants the real truth:

1) We filed suit ONLY because we were being sued - i.e. it was just a legal tactic to try and get the lawsuit against us dropped (not an attempt to set legal precedent). The way our legal system works if someone sues you for what you believe is an unfounded reason you are not allowed to counter sue based on the fact that you think the original lawsuit is frivolous. There has to be some legal grounds for the counter suit. We knew we were stretching on this but, again, all we were hoping to do was make the original lawsuit go away.

2) Our logs detected other activity besides just a port scan so both cases weren't only about a port scan.

3) All we did was report the information to the customer who reported the case to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). The GBI requested our logs and we handed the logs to them. Evidently the GBI saw something in the logs that compelled them to press charges. They did not consult us on this so I really have no idea what grounds they found for the criminal charges.

4) Evidently the judge agreed with us that the original lawsuit against us was unfounded since it was dismissed before going to trial (something that generally doesn't happen unless a lawsuit is clearly frivolous). Our lawsuit was dismissed as well which was fine with us - we just wanted the whole thing to go away so that we could get back to business.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/126/4097#4097
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
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 2007, SecurityFocus