[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Internet-wide port scans
- Subject: Internet-wide port scans
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:46:14 -0400
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:48:47 -0400." <CAFANWtU4BEu24V=0_3DZUyqX0qkjon435mJLp4DXuE8R+nfLsg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAFANWtU4BEu24V=0_3DZUyqX0qkjon435mJLp4DXuE8R+nfLsg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:48:47 -0400, Darius Jahandarie said:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
> > Want to re-write that section or should I respond now? ;-)
>
> I always thought it wasn't allowed because of 18 USC 2701, but
> IINAL, would be happy to hear otherwise :)
If a portscan allows access to stored communications, you have bigger
problems.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20121016/f88d7b50/attachment.bin>