Other than the odd grammatical error, you had a half-decent post going until your last sentence, which immediately relegated you to *idiot* status. If you think for one minute that the few hours a day you spend *learning* your *job* makes you superior in knowledge to ANY *professional* system administrator, then you you don't have the sense that god gave a chimpanzee. Think before you speak. There are *professional* System and Security administrators out there who have forgotten VOLUMES more about system and network administration than you apparently will ever know.
Ok, let's be realistic now. In real life, do cops go to every house and search just to check if there're loads of crack lying around? Hell no. At least in the US, laws postulate necessity good reason for search warrants. Port scans are, to within reason, equivalent. No one wants FBI sniffing at their boxes all the time -- just because of the unnecessary traffic if nothing else.
Oh please. In real life, Cops can't go to every house and search just to check if there are loads of crack lying around because a) there are laws against unreasonable/unfounded search and b) they just don't have the manpower. They can, however (and do) routinely stop motor vehicles to check them for safety and regulatory violations or to check the sobriety of the vehicle operator. That's the analogy that makes most sense when dealing with the internet. Other than the expense involved, I see nothing else stopping ANY government worldwide from creating an agency to monitor networks within that country's boundries for security holes/bugs for which there are known fixes and warning and/or punishing those responsible for not getting their shit together in administering the security of their networks.
How 'bout if the GOVERNMENT goes around port-scanning the machines in the net for exploitable holes, and then requires that those people take their machines off the net until they've got the holes fixed up?
Don't laugh. It's coming, rest assured. Also, try this on for size: As of 1997, there were 210+ million registered motor vehicles in the U.S., each vehicle with a unique identifying code number (VIN). Anyone else here besides me think that its possible that we might see unique identifying code numbers for computers in the near future? Impossible, you say?? Thats what they said about putting a man on the moon. Given enough time, money, and most importantly, incentive, it will happen.
I agree. Unfortunately for all of us, if this kind of activity becomes wide-spread, it will be just the kind of incentive and excuse the govt. needs to crack down hard on the "free-wheeling" aspects of the net. After all, we're talking about something that could very well adversely affect the economic health of the U.S., who leads the world in e-commerce development. Expect massive lobbying on the part of big business and banks (among others) for much tougher restrictions and tighter controls on the net if the FBI is not successful in stopping these idiots.
Exactly. Besides, Shimomura duped the FBI into believing that Mitnick was the greatest computer criminal of all time, so forgive me if I'm less than optimistic about them having enough objectivity and intelligence to ever get catch these kiddies.
Hence the reason that Stanford was probably the source of some of the DDoS attacks. I wonder how many of those rogue systems have trusted access to some of Stanford's "offical" systems?
Slashdot Mirror
Other than the odd grammatical error, you had a half-decent post going until your last sentence, which immediately relegated you to *idiot* status. If you think for one minute that the few hours a day you spend *learning* your *job* makes you superior in knowledge to ANY *professional* system administrator, then you you don't have the sense that god gave a chimpanzee. Think before you speak. There are *professional* System and Security administrators out there who have forgotten VOLUMES more about system and network administration than you apparently will ever know.
Oh please. In real life, Cops can't go to every house and search just to check if there are loads of crack lying around because a) there are laws against unreasonable/unfounded search and b) they just don't have the manpower. They can, however (and do) routinely stop motor vehicles to check them for safety and regulatory violations or to check the sobriety of the vehicle operator. That's the analogy that makes most sense when dealing with the internet. Other than the expense involved, I see nothing else stopping ANY government worldwide from creating an agency to monitor networks within that country's boundries for security holes/bugs for which there are known fixes and warning and/or punishing those responsible for not getting their shit together in administering the security of their networks.
Don't laugh. It's coming, rest assured. Also, try this on for size: As of 1997, there were 210+ million registered motor vehicles in the U.S., each vehicle with a unique identifying code number (VIN). Anyone else here besides me think that its possible that we might see unique identifying code numbers for computers in the near future? Impossible, you say?? Thats what they said about putting a man on the moon. Given enough time, money, and most importantly, incentive, it will happen.
I agree. Unfortunately for all of us, if this kind of activity becomes wide-spread, it will be just the kind of incentive and excuse the govt. needs to crack down hard on the "free-wheeling" aspects of the net. After all, we're talking about something that could very well adversely affect the economic health of the U.S., who leads the world in e-commerce development. Expect massive lobbying on the part of big business and banks (among others) for much tougher restrictions and tighter controls on the net if the FBI is not successful in stopping these idiots.
Actually, the computer that allegedly was the source of "some" of the DDoS attack was a located at a remote research facility near Monterey.
Exactly. Besides, Shimomura duped the FBI into believing that Mitnick was the greatest computer criminal of all time, so forgive me if I'm less than optimistic about them having enough objectivity and intelligence to ever get catch these kiddies.
Hence the reason that Stanford was probably the source of some of the DDoS attacks. I wonder how many of those rogue systems have trusted access to some of Stanford's "offical" systems?