Yes.
I have personally done this before, the correct sequence of moves is:
1. Call your neighbor, ask for permission. 2. Check the door 3. Lock the door
If you don’t have their phone number, you are not on good enough terms to touch their lock.
I have personally done this before, the correct sequence of moves is:
1. Call your neighbor, ask for permission. 2. Check the door 3. Lock the door
If you don’t have their phone number, you are not on good enough terms to touch their lock.
Having one person with poor computer security negatively impacts everyone. Hacked sites turn into phishing landing pages, exploit kit hosting, stolen data dumps, and launching off points for attacks on everyone else. The vuln scanning ShadowServer is doing is meant to be a public good, which is why they share the info with ISPs and governments.
Security is too intertwined to stand by and say other people's vulnerabilities aren't your problem.
And even if you remove the analogy, ShadowServer means good, but good intentions doesn’t necessarily make their action moral or legal.
Yes, compromised servers can be used by hackers as means to commit crimes. But when these groups scan the entire internet, they do cause harm as well, as shown in the original linked article. Much less harm than a black hat, but they still waste time and resources from innocent third parties.
It’s fair to ask if the harm they cause is worth the good they do.
Researcher disclosures, even with POCs, have moved the industry to action incumbents would have rather buried. I’m thinking of CPU and memory exploits, and stuff like log4j, as examples.
Frontier AI is enabling the cyber arms race more than anything past, and certainly more than some bot slowly crawling web servers for old vulnerabilities.
If we’re talking harm, it should be in the broader context of internet history, imo.
The first is a lot more legal and ethical than the second.
Fear & the danger aren't the same. anyway, I'll let it go.
It’s a fact that these scanners send unauthorized requests to servers whose owners did not consent to scanning.
If we think this is acceptable, which of the following is also acceptable, and if some is not, where is the difference:
1) Detecting the scan and notifying the ISP of the scanner that they are abusers
2) Notifying law enforcement and filing a formal complaint
3) Implementing passive defense measures and responding with a reverse slow loris attack where you trickle 1 response packet per minute down the pipe to attempt to DoS the scanner. But only to prevent them from accidentally hitting some innocent third party’s homemade wiki system that deletes content on GET requests. Not with any malice, just to help prevent harm to others.
4) Implementing active defense where you return progressively more hostile response starting with zip bombs and ending with whatever sota cyberweapon latest AI can give you. But only to shut down the scanner and not cause any damage what so ever. Simply to check if their security is up to par. You would of course report any detected vulnerabilities to the ISP of the scanner, to prevent criminals from using the same.
5) Actively responding with a scan of your own to any incoming scans.