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.