Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Fw: [Full-disclosure] scanning |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:33:18 +0100 |
It's worth looking into the Daniel Cuthbert case in the UK.
Drew
"Vulnerability test" is not "port scan". It could involve attempt to "penetrate" or even penetration of the website through a vulnerable server script for instance. In this particular case, we don't know what RA 8792 in the Philippines says and/or what Tridel Technologies, Inc did. But in general, "port scan" is supposed to be only checking which TCP/IP ports are open for connection without going through the entire process of connection. There is no question of penetration. How could any authority prosecute this legitimately? If I, by mistake, attempt a connection to a site, could I be in legal trouble? How many ports constitute "port scanning"?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nightfall Nightfall" < danzigfour@gmail.com> To: <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] scanning
> On 6/2/06, Simon Smith <simon@snosoft.com> wrote: > > Guys, > > It is not illegal to port-scan a target IP with or without > > authorization. It would be impossible to prosecute someone because they > > portscanned you. Hell, it would be near impossible to prosecute someone > > who ran nessus against you but never penetrated your systems. From > > expereince, the FBI only takes interest in crimes that cause roughly > > $50,000.00 in damage or more. If you are below that mark or if they are > > too busy... you won't get jack unless you pay for it. > > > > > > > > David Alanis wrote: > > >> Depends on the Jurisdiction... However If I found out that it was my > > >> site, I'd have to debate on whether or not to sue your ass... But that's > > >> just me... > > >> > > > > > > You would not sue anyone. Thats just saying that you would sue anyone under the sun trying to ping or go after some bot trying to scan your Apache box for IIS 5 vulnerabilities. My point is, even if you did realize someone was actively scanning your host, there would be nothing you could do, I think it would be too time consuming. Yet your question still stands. Is it legal or illegal? > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: full-disclosure-bounces@lists.grok.org.uk > > >> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of > > >> Nightfall Nightfall > > >> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:54 PM > > >> To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > >> Subject: [Full-disclosure] scanning > > >> > > >> > > >> Is it illegal if I perform a vulnerability scan on a site without > > >> permission from the owner? How about a simple port scan? thanks.. > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds" - Einstein > > > > > > "Cuanta estupidez en tan poco cerebro!" > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean. > > Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com
> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > I brought up this topic coz of these incident > - http://www.pinoytechblog.com/archives/tridel-settles-with-inq7net-on-vuln erability-test-suit > . > I was wondering if they were justified in suing the perpetrator who > did the vulnerability scan on their network. > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] scanning, ad@heapoverflow.com |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] scanning, Marcos Agüero |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Fw: [Full-disclosure] scanning, Lawrence Tang |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Fw: [Full-disclosure] scanning, Lawrence Tang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |