Notifying the infected?

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

I can do better. ZERO infections. Running windows since 3.1.

Practice safe hex.

Brian

Reply to
Skywise
Loading thread data ...

Bit Twister wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@wb.home.test:

Well, then they better star pressing charges. I hope they have the court resources to prosecute a couple billion people.

Brian

Reply to
Skywise

On second glance: even if the port is well-known, it still doesn't say anything at all about whether the owner of the server made that service accessible on purpose. Back to square one. Unless we can assume implicit consent of the owner (he willingly put the server on a public network after all). In which case I fail to see why this shouldn't apply to all ports.

I'm talking about accessing/using a service. Attacking someone is already covered by other (criminal) laws. It's the same difference as talking to a random person and beating that random person up.

cobalt@iridium:~ $ nmap -sT -P0 74.125.43.103

Starting Nmap 4.62 (

formatting link
) at 2010-01-22 09:16 CET Interesting ports on bw-in-f103.1e100.net (74.125.43.103): Not shown: 1712 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE

80/tcp open http 113/tcp closed auth 443/tcp open https

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 14.084 seconds cobalt@iridium:~ $ _

No exploit/attack intended. Your turn.

[...]

Ummm... no. I wrote "... half a brain and don't [have laws against such action]", leaving out the part in square brackets as a figure of speech (this is called "ellipsis"; look it up).

English isn't my first language, so I'm prone to make a mistake every once in a while (although in this case I don't believe I did). What's your excuse?

cu

59cobalt
Reply to
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.