Whether Covad chooses to enforce their AUP against port scanning is a business decision up to them. Again, why worry about things out of your control, especially when we are talking about port scanning. I would think people have more pressing issues, guess not. -- Ross ross [at] dillio.net
In message <20090312120816.B668@egps.egps.com>, "N. Yaakov Ziskind" writes:
JC Dill wrote (on Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:02:25AM -0700):
Ross wrote:
There seems to be a big misconception that he asked them to "hand over" the info. As I read the OP, he asked Covad to do something about it and Covad said "we can't do anything about it because we don't have logs". Here's a quote from the OP:
The real problem is that Covad claim (second hand) that they can't identify the perpetrator(s).
I've been nudging an operator at Covad about a handful of hosts from his DHCP pool that have been attacking - relentlessly port scanning - our assets. I've been informed by this individual that there's "no way" to determine which customer had that address at the times I list in my logs - even though these logs are sent within 48 hours of the incidents.
One shouldn't need to have to get the indentities of the perpetrators to get AUP enforced. Port scanning is against 99.9% of AUP's.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org