, SecurityFocus 2000-07-07
A mysterious California company is sweeping the net for live hosts, and touching off alarms around the world.
Expand all |
Post comment
Anyone care to share the source IP?
2000-07-07
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
IP address range?
2000-07-07
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
IP address range?
2000-07-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
They ARE scanning .GOV
2000-07-07
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
If Exodus is allowing/supporting this, why not block them as well?
2000-07-07
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
What can they really learn?
2000-07-07
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Scanned In Seattle
2000-07-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
This is the same as a person knocking at your front door, Nothing illegal here.
2000-07-11
Jeff Deitz <jeffd (at) vsp (dot) com [email concealed]> (3 replies)
Jeff Deitz <jeffd (at) vsp (dot) com [email concealed]> (3 replies)
This is the same as a person knocking at your front door, Nothing illegal here.
2000-07-11
Anonymous
Anonymous
This is the same as a person knocking at your front door, Nothing illegal here.
2000-07-11
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
This is the same as a person knocking at your front door, Nothing illegal here.
2000-07-13
Anonymous
Anonymous
time domain reflectometer
2000-07-11
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)

|I just looked at my logs and I see a lot of portscan |activity the last three days from the netblock controlled |by Exodous Communications Inc (64.41.207.50).
Interesting to note, that now that this one source for pings and tracerouts from inside the Exodous adderss space, they will be the first ones suspected in similar types of traffic from any Exodous address space UNLESS they publish their IP's.
Note that the ip address in the above is not near the one posted in the logs in the 'IP address range?' thread.
I'd be even more concerned it there were ties between this company and InQit.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/56/2399#2399